Just a note... if y'all come in here reading details, there will be some plot points talked about. Just an FYI.

OG title: Inglourious Basterds...Quick Review

You can't win with a QT flick...His films tend to divide people. Case in point...this film's reaction from Cannes (mixed) versus the loud 5 minute plus applause this film received with the random audience I seen this with.

If you love a Tarantino film, your a QT fanboy and are jockin' him just because...If you hate his film, your just a QT hater who thinks he is a racist...blah, blah, blah. We heard and read it all...including these boards. I won't have that debate and I won't comment on QT the person or tell you if I like him or not...I just wanna speak on the film.

This not a thorough review, but just some quick thoughts I wanted to share about "Inglorious Basterds".

My first reaction after the screening was..."Inglorious Basterds" was very good...hours later, I thought...it may even be excellent, it may even be QT's best film since "Pulp Fiction". And that is where I am still at with this film...it is excellent.

This is a different type of film for QT in the fact that it feels like Tarantino's first art house film in approach and it feels very "old school-European" in style. I mean the smart QT dialog is there (even if it is mostly in subtitles), the handpicked/obscure/hip soundtrack is there, the chapter set up is there, the sudden bursts of violence and gore are there, as well as other several QT trademarks are present.

However, it feels like the lesser of the so-called typical Tarantino-styled films...first off, most of the dialog is subtitled with German, Italian, and several other languages. This aspect, as well as the long running time (2 1/2 hours) will make it difficult for the film to make a big box office splash. That is why the Weinsteins are promoting this film like a "Brad Pitt and squad on a revenge mission flick". This is not that at all. The "Basterds" and Brad Pitt are only a small part of this film and is only one plot element in a large weave of many that come together for the final climax, which is superb. A matter of fact, Brad Pitt's screen time will be considered short, which will most likely disappoint those seeking a Brad Pitt flick. Also, the foreign languages give the Tarantino-styled dialog a different kind of snap and rhythm. You know it's a Tarantino film by the words you read, but it feels fresh.

Also, this is definitely an assemble piece that spends equal time with each character and it feels like a gory and wacky version of "Altman" doing a WWII film. Also, this is not the balls-out action film that the trailer may hint at or a la "Kill Bill" and is more comparable to "Death Proof", only in that the dialog is a major character and provides most of the fireworks. However, in "Death Proof", I felt that it was a case of way too much, which turned to boredom, which turned to QT feeling himself a bit. This is not the case with "Inglorious Basterds"...the dialog is rich, refreshing, exciting, and a welcome return to QT's "Jackie Brown" days. Also, this is the best looking Tarantino film...it looks great and some of the shots by DP Robert Richardson are gorgeous to look at. Also, the editing is solid as well and the 2 1/2 hour running time zips by, which is rare for a dialog-driven film with subtitles.

Is this film a masterpiece? I don't know yet, it is probably the best film I seen this year as I also loved "Up", "Moon", "Hurt Locker", and "Thirst". But most importantly, it is Tarantino's best since "Kill Bill" or at least "Jackie Brown"...depending how you feel about either of those films. There are classic scenes in this film as well...the opening chapter may be the best section in any Tarantino film and the end climax may be the most entertaining section in any Tarantino film. It also features the best character actor in a QT flick (Christoph Waltz as "The Jew Hunter" Col. Hans Landa) since Sam Jackson went off as Jueles in "Pulp Fiction"...he is a bad-ass villian.

Just do yourselves a favor and leave any QT hate at the door and see this film with an open mind...you will be entertained and that is all that should matter for any flick these days with the crazy ticket prices...really, you may even love it...I did!

but the OP wasn't talking 'bers.

In my review, I do believe that I mentioned that this film would probably not fair well at the box office. Tarantino films usually don't do well in the theaters minus Pulp Fiction. However, all his films thrive past the theatrical release and make its money via dvd and cable/tv.

The Weinsteins are trying to push this hard using Pitt's name as the star/lead actor and having everyone believe that it is a straight up action flick.

This will work for the first week as I bet it will be #1 with about $20 million plus...due to Pitt's name, QT fans coming out the first week, and the lack of competition the week it opens. It will probably do $50 to $60 million total in the theaters, which hollywood now considers a bomb. However, it will make the majority of the money on dvd, blu ray, and cable/tv.

Tarantino films usually don't do well in the theaters minus Pulp
>Fiction.


Uh..have you SEEN the Kill Bill movies? They've both done exceptionally well at the box office as far as I know.

because he ALWAYS gets good reviews...ALWAYS. what other filmmaker ALWAYS gets good reviews? the critics at all the cool kids magazines refuse to give him a bad review. they always cop pleas as to why it shouldn't be judged like any other film, often going into bullshit about what QT was and wasn't aiming for. FUCK THAT! is the movie good ot not?

Well...I'm not one of those critics and I would not go far enough to say all critics feel that way about his films...he has gotten plenty of poor reviews in the past. Just peep some of the Death Proof reviews. And you are hearing it from a OKP that does not think Tarantino is the god of cinema...nor is he a hack.

But to answer your question...it is not only good IMO...it is excellent.

>because he ALWAYS gets good reviews...ALWAYS. what other
>filmmaker ALWAYS gets good reviews?


>the critics at all the
>cool kids magazines refuse to give him a bad review. they
>always cop pleas as to why it shouldn't be judged like any
>other film, often going into bullshit about what QT was and
>wasn't aiming for. FUCK THAT! is the movie good ot not?

What do you mean they cop pleas about why it shouldn't be judged like any other film?

>
>(mixed) versus the loud 5 minute plus applause this film
>received with the random audience I seen this with.
>

Are you saying that after the movie was over, folks were clapping for five whole minutes?

Yeah, thats what I said...about 5 plus minutes.

There were obviously some critics and hyped QT fans in the audience...I mean who else would enthusiastically cheer for each name that comes across the credits.

Also, the film ends on a high note with a fun closing line of dialog that winks at the audience and caused a mix of laughter and cheering that just continued on. I won't spoil it...it is best to go into this film without all the spoilers...like most films of course.

>There were obviously some critics and hyped QT fans in the
>audience...I mean who else would enthusiastically cheer for
>each name that comes across the credits.


Ugghh...I fuckin hate fan boys. Especially the ones who find it necessary to invite all their frat buddies to see the movie. Just sit down, shut up and let me enjoy the movie I paid nearly $20 for a week's worth of groceries to see.

"Jack of all trades, master of none, though ofttimes better than master of one"-Anonymous


The sharpest sword is a word spoken in wrath;the deadliest poison is covetousness;the fiercest fire is hatred; the darkest night is ignorance.-The Buddha

sorry to disappoint you...no "n" word.

nah some nazi said nigga.
even though in the subtitles in said negro.
it was clear and crisp.
i was waiting for it tho.
aint no way a movie about nazis directed by qt
is gonna end without nigga being dropped. foh.
and niggas will be rubbed the wrong by that king kong shit.
whatever tho. white people cant help it.
nevertheless.
most entertaining movie i seen in a minute.

>nah some nazi said nigga.
>even though in the subtitles in said negro.
>it was clear and crisp.
>i was waiting for it tho.
>aint no way a movie about nazis directed by qt
>is gonna end without nigga being dropped. foh.
>and niggas will be rubbed the wrong by that king kong shit.
>whatever tho. white people cant help it.
>nevertheless.
>most entertaining movie i seen in a minute.


Yes...the king kong insult got tons of groans and boos from the audience who didn't see that coming. LOL. It didn't bother me though. It was a purely entertaining film, and it was vintage Tarantino nonetheless. What's strange is that the audience I was in was mostly consisted of white folks. There were only twenty blacks (including myself) out of 200 or so people, and they all sat in the back rows! LOL.

Word.
im still hype to see it. It's a major studio film with this type subject matter and craziness? don't understand the hate
I think the guy just gets hated on period, but he's put me onto tons of shit through his films, and I bet you guys too
I don't think it'll do huge numbers but I certainly don't think it'll be looked at as a "flop" in retrospect
I'd rather watch this crazy shit than another fucking seth rogen movie, tarantino or not

<don't understand the hate I think the guy just gets hated on


see post #4 above you

I don't get the qt is racist shit.
If giving Sam Jack his greatest role and resurrecting Pam Grier is racist then ok

in 1996 but for some reasons has a huge problem with pulp fiction. Ppl just hate him, no reason necessary.

And really it was only 2 films that he actually used it. One for comedic purposes (Pulp Fiction) and the other b/c he was trying to stay true to the genre (Jackie Brown). Not saying he was right for using it as much as he did but I don't think that makes him a racist. It just makes him an eager to be seen as down white guy.

The way nigger was used in that movie was racist as fuck.

I know, hard to believe, right? I figured they'd be moral pillars, too.


That said, IB looks like ass. The racist stuff in Death Proof made it suck a little more. That's saying something. I want my money back, you premature birth-face having ego case.

but you can't deny that shit got out of hand.

n/m

Pulp Fiction on the other hand...no excuse. Stupid line.

lol damn u sensitive?

Don't hire somebody you have a problem with, use their name to sell your movie (his name's on the cover) and shit on them latter. I love Spike Lee probably more than Tarantino but that's a bitch move.

nm

now i'm going to see it..

but if i don't enjoy it...i'm walking out halfway, coming back to your review and cursing you.

when is this coming out?

________________________________________________________________________
"I am a rewriter. I rewrite a number of times. Imaginative richness is born in rewriting." - Bernard Malamud

good shit. a nigga enjoyed.

________________________________________________________________________
"I am a rewriter. I rewrite a number of times. Imaginative richness is born in rewriting." - Bernard Malamud

Like grown people with lives to live and shit?

Really?!?


©

Act trife, I'll let my dog cold fuck your wife

-- Slick Rick

There is only one corner of the universe you can be certain of improving, and that's your own self.

-- Aldous Huxley (1864-1963)

I wrote a 15-page paper on this topic in grad school. He's said an enormous amount of questionable shit in the past. Not saying he's BLATANTLY racist, but I am saying he's IGNORANTLY racist.

I know of his bullshit in movies, but what other racist stuff has he said?

He's said white people should be allowed to say the n-word, because black people use it so freely, why shouldn't they?

He's also said it's just a word, so no one is allowed to own it, and it can't hurt anyone.

He's also said he grew up in a mostly-black neighborhood (which actually has been proven to be false), where his friends often called him one, so he's been using it all his life with black people, and no one's been offended.

He's also said since he dates black women (he's dated one or two), he should be allowed to say the n-word, because he understands the African-American perspective.

It's stuff like this-- not BLATANTLY racist, just completely and utterly ignorant.

That's extremely bitch-made.
I think I remember the bulk of these statements. I think it was during his war with Spike.

I usually miss a lot of his interviews (unless written) because I hate watching him speak.
His mannerisms are oft-putting at times.

I remember him saying in a Playboy interview he grew up in a Black neighborhood and his mom fucked Black and Mexican dudes but I didn't know he was making up the part about the neighborhood.

Mech

I wrote a huge paper on him for grad school.

The 15 minutes of Avatar that is screening on the same day could bring more people out to the theaters which might help out QT.

saw IB (1130am - 2pm) and two screenings of Avatar (6 & 645pm).

IB is one of QT's best films. Maybe more re-watchable than Pulp Fiction, depending on what kind of shit disturbs you.

He's received more free passes and unearned praise than
anyone in the history of Hollywood.

Seriously - shut that shit up.

If you can't even admitt that Pulp Fiction was a classic than you need to shut up. I mean saying he's overrated is fair but saying there's no reason for any of his praise is retarded. He's one of the best director/writers to come out the last 20 or so years.

>If you can't even admitt that Pulp Fiction was a classic...

>If you can't even admitt that Pulp Fiction was a classic than
>you need to shut up. I mean saying he's overrated is fair but
>saying there's no reason for any of his praise is retarded.
>He's one of the best director/writers to come out the last 20
>or so years.

Let's just say 'Pulp Fiction' *was* a classic(which it
most certainly was not):

So he's one of the best writers/directors to come out in the
last 20 years because of 'Pulp Fiction?'

LOL.

Lots of filmmakers have *one* great movie. Doesn't
make them great. Tarantino's body of work is wildly
overrated, shitty, and bland.

Like I said -- Robert Rodriguez is what Quinton Tarantino
wishes he was. Tarantino has great vision and perspective.
He just can't actually sit down and make good movies the
way Rodriguez can.

that was the most measured, reasoned, logical response I've EVER seen you write.

WTF is going on OE - I COUNT on you to come w/the fire. I NEED you to come w/the fire.

I'm VERY disappointed...

>that was the most measured, reasoned, logical response I've
>EVER seen you write.
>
>WTF is going on OE - I COUNT on you to come w/the fire. I NEED
>you to come w/the fire.
>
>I'm VERY disappointed...

If I see it, and it sucks, I'm going to come in here
and spew acid on this entire post

your reach is incredible
its funny because some people might read this and think youre right.
But those people probably havent seen any of the films you're talking about.
I'll have to remember your username so i can scroll past your BS

I actually think stylistically he's extremely dope, but I don't think he makes great movies overall. (there are a few execptions tho...)

I like Rodriguez but I don't see him as a talented filmmaker b/c his style is way too sloppy. He's a guy with more ambition than talent and has proven that constantly throughout his career.

As far as Tarantino, Pulp Fiction is without a doubt a classic and RD, Kill Bill Vol 1 & 2 are great films. You might not like them but he's known for more than just one film. I don't know how you can say his films are bland and then praise Rodriguez who's made very many bland films.

Tarantino's films are almost all highly praised, that's not even up for debate. Whether u like them or not, that's up to u but don't project your hate as some universal truth.

And if Tarantino isn't considered one of the greatest director/writers to come out in the last 20 years, who is on that great list of yours?

the ONLY reason i've EVER seen him big-up that dude is in the context of shitting on tarantino. i reeeally hope y'all ain't falling for that okeydoke. lol.

While Pulp Fiction was great, it went for too much (it did have the best acting performance of any QT film tho). Jackie Brown was (havent seen IB yet so can't say IS) his most successful ambitious film & he pulled it off using restraint.

As you can see LoL, it really hurts my feelings that this movie isn't universally loved as QT's masterpiece the way it should be.

but I think it's far from a masterpiece. The pacing of the film isn't that great, a lot of the characters are pretty basic (De Niro's especially) and can't say I've rewatched it even close as much as the others I did mention. And as much I like it I would say it's far from ambitious, it very much felt like Tarantino on cruise-control. There was some great parts but overall it lacks. The soundtrack was the only classic part of this movie.

Personally speaking I don't think Pulp fiction took on too much and the fact that mainstream audience took to it shows that he didn't. B/c it's a film of layers not a in your face complex film like Southland Tales, you can still watch, get it and enjoy it without knowing half of what goes on in the film.

Maybe ass is a strong word, but that shit is overrated like a muthafucka. I'll ride for RD and Pulp Fiction (dead nigger storage and all), but Kill Bill for me suffers from Matrix syndrome, the first one was pretty damn good, but the follow up tainted the whole fucking thing.

Vol. 2 was just straight up boring...the blind master bit fell flat, the fight scenes weren't on par with the first movie, every scene with Kwai Chang Caine was wack. It didn't really have any punch to it.

That shit should go down as dude's biggest fuck up...I mean after Death Proof.


Or maybe I just hate Uma Thruman, who the fuck knows.

"Jack of all trades, master of none, though ofttimes better than master of one"-Anonymous


The sharpest sword is a word spoken in wrath;the deadliest poison is covetousness;the fiercest fire is hatred; the darkest night is ignorance.-The Buddha

>
>Or maybe I just hate Uma Thruman, who the fuck knows.
>

Just going over it today after seeing Inglourious Basterds... I think Basterds is the only one that even dares to be about anything remotely meaningful.

Jackie Brown has the most heart... but Pulp, Reservoir, Kill Bill, and *shudder* Death Proof are all basically about being entertainment, nothing more. Yet you hear people assign philosophies and other deep shit to Tarantino's flicks, writing essays about what they all mean and things. He isn't aiming for depth in the slightest bit.

Inglorious Basterds has a death scene... I won't spoil it, but it was the first time I cared in a Tarantino flick that a character died. I mean, doesn't that SAY something?

>Just going over it today after seeing Inglourious Basterds...
>I think Basterds is the only one that even dares to be about
>anything remotely meaningful.
>
>Jackie Brown has the most heart... but Pulp, Reservoir, Kill
>Bill, and *shudder* Death Proof are all basically about being
>entertainment, nothing more. Yet you hear people assign
>philosophies and other deep shit to Tarantino's flicks,
>writing essays about what they all mean and things. He isn't
>aiming for depth in the slightest bit.


Very good points, and it's funny you mentioned this because while I've seen every other Tarantino flick and enjoyed it, I never paid any attention to Jackie Brown. Maybe because the movie wasn't blood-splattering, head-splitting gore like all his other movies. I just thought Jackie Brown was too....original. For one thing it was very dialogue driven (much like Death Proof, and Kill Bill Vol 2) and as a result, I didn't care for those movies as much. Whereas with Kill Bill Vol 1., Pulp Fiction and Reservoir Dogs- those movies were made for entertainment purposes with all the gore and vulgarity thus leaving less time for depth and profundity. As far as Inglourious Basterds is concerned (which may be his best work) I loved this movie for one reason only: it was a perfect, measured mix of profundity and thriller- two elements that I've never seen connect in a Quentin Tarantino film.

>Inglorious Basterds has a death scene... I won't spoil it, but
>it was the first time I cared in a Tarantino flick that a
>character died. I mean, doesn't that SAY something?


yea but that's your subjective opinion on what a "meaningful" death scene should look like. just because his other scenes weren't meaningful to you doesn't mean they didn't resonate w/ someone else. seems like the EB scene only affected you because it was some glossy hollywood slow-motion bullshit.

i think pulp fiction had a lot of depth and a pretty strong message. i won't go into detail about it, but if you can't see some underlying themes then i'm not sure what movie you're watching.

Because Sam Jack finds religion, it's supposed to be a piece of moralism, higher power, coincidence vs. fate?

OR is that conversation merely used as the basis of Tarantino-esque discussion? I submit that that Pulp Fiction is about coincidence vs. fate as much as Inglourious Basterds is about hawks vs. rats.

And I LIKE Pulp Fiction. Folks forget this. I own it on DVD. I'm not O_E here-- I'm entertained by the film, it's got great acting, funny shit in it, etc. BUT it's not deep.

And of course the death point I made is subjective. I never intended on people taking it as objective, I merely wondered if others felt the same way I did.

whats funny is that I think Tarantino is not the much different than Tyler Perry in one aspect.

they both make movies for their intended audiences to enjoy, and their respective audiences do enjoy them. i remember as the whole burning of the theater, hitler/massacre was taking place, i thought to myself "Tarantino fans will love this movie". Sure enough, as i walked out of the theater, this middle-aged white dude said to his family "man, was that pure-classic Tarantino or what!!!???"

the primary difference is that Tyler does not pretend he is the avant-garde of cinema and an "artiste", and neither does his fanbase.

on the other hand, Quentin does. Quentin pays homages to sh*tty movies, by making entertaining (sometimes) sh*tty movies. Yet he wants to pass it off as some great work of art that is on the cutting edge and above everything else in cinema (And so does a lot of his fans).


>Because Sam Jack finds religion, it's supposed to be a piece
>of moralism, higher power, coincidence vs. fate?
>
>OR is that conversation merely used as the basis of
>Tarantino-esque discussion? I submit that that Pulp Fiction is
>about coincidence vs. fate as much as Inglourious Basterds is
>about hawks vs. rats.
>

yeah,

>And I LIKE Pulp Fiction. Folks forget this. I own it on DVD.
>I'm not O_E here-- I'm entertained by the film, it's got great
>acting, funny shit in it, etc. BUT it's not deep.
>
>And of course the death point I made is subjective. I never
>intended on people taking it as objective, I merely wondered
>if others felt the same way I did.

i don't like Pulp Fiction.

i actually like Resevoir Dogs. I think that is the only thing meaningful that Tarantino has ever made. In Jackie Brown, he tried, but it came off flat. The characters were developed. They had depth, particularly Mr. Orange. the writing was spotless. his nonlinear approach in that movie was devistatingly effective. it wasn't just "slick" like it was in Pulp Fiction.

Another thing that boggles the mind about Tarantino, is that his movies don't feel like movies. I mean, if you were blind, would there *really* be a difference in watching a Tarantino movie vs. watching it with vision? Meaning, everything with Tarantino of significance is focused on dialogue. everything. talk, talk, talk, talk. so much so, he loses sight of so many other dimensions of filmmaking and storytelling. the dialogue also drags down a lot of his scenes in movies. 2 hours of a Tarantino flick feels like 4 hours.

should study what directing is. B/c if you think Tarantino does nothing visually than you know absolutely nothing about directing.

Watch these 4 scenes and tell me he does nothing visually.
-The Overdose scene in Pulp Fiction
-Elle going to kill the bride in the hospital in Kill Bill vol 2
-The climax sequence in Jackie Brown
-The crazy 88 fight sequence in Kill Bill vol 1

These are all completely different scenes and they are all very visual scenes that aren't carried by dialogue.

i don't think its anything overly complex, but it was the whole coincidence vs evil in addition to the overall tyrannic nature of people in general. it presented "bad guys" from several different classes in a power struggle with one another. and because there was really no rhyme or reason to lends gives further credence to the chaotic nature of humans. then you have the dynamic of jewels becoming "enlightened" during the movie due to his traumatic experiences. i don't think there was meant to be any religious undertones, but the whole bible quote was simply analogous to the varying conflicts between people.

this is my personal take on the film. i can see your viewpoint of it having little to no substance, and honestly I have no clue what QT intended. but it was a powerful film IMO, especially with the climactic restaurant scene. and it was certainly more than just empty dialogue.

>Jackie Brown has the most heart... but Pulp, Reservoir, Kill
>Bill, and *shudder* Death Proof are all basically about being
>entertainment, nothing more.
> He isn't aiming for depth in the slightest bit.


& i loved death proof

the question of

ARE YOU NOT ENTERTAINED!?

is consistently answered with a resounding

YES TARANTINO YES I GODDAMN AM
~~~~
When you are born, you cry, and the world rejoices. Live so that when you die, you rejoice, and the world cries.
~~~~
You cannot hate people for their own good.

i'm usually split with his movies, either i like them, or i strongly dislike them.

RD, Pulp Fiction, & Kill Bill are all outstanding flicks, esp the 1st two. as for his other movies, I don't care for them at all (yes that includes Jackie Brown).

Inglorious Bastards shit does not really intrigue me based on the preview and plot. however, being that it's QT and based on early reviews, I'm being more optimistic about it (ie, i may actually spend money on a movie ticket as opposed to free ninjavideo).

To really enjoy a Tanrantino flick you must enjoy the craft of a script. If you're into big explosions ,CG effects , and creepy teenage love affairs and fart jokes...QT movies might not be for you. You're not the audience his movies are looking for. Go watch gems like 500 days of summer or A Perfect Gettaway which are pretty good movies if you're into that kinda shit.

The magic of QT comes through the way he writes his characters as 3 dimensional beings who feel authentic. Not only in the context in which they're written but in our own universe.Let's take a character like Ordell Robbie in Jackie Brown , with little subtle details in the script, we get a good feel on what kind of person he is, we know why he kills Beaumont, and later dumbass Louis ( I still think De Niro's performance was underrated there),We know somewhere in his twisted heart he loves Melanie, we might not as an audience agree with his actions but we understand them,in a way that we can believe that there are dudes just like that character in our own world.This is true for most of the characters in QT's movies. Also the conversations that the characters have among themsleves are filled with gems of pop culture trivia and facts that makes us almost wanna be at the table with them.

I can't name that many writers, directors that have a knack for making movies so satisfying. Knocking on Pulp Fiction is pretty foolish in any standards. I hated 2001: A Space Odissey but I have great respect for what it is. Stanley Kubrik is the man. It's not because I didn't dig it that it becomes a lame duck. The audacity of it all would burst my balls. Who teh F*&K do I think I am?

no you're not smarter/better/faster/stronger cuz you like tarantino.

His shit ain't REMOTELY challenging, at all.

He a movie geek that likes certain types of scenes, but seems to have problems stringing scenes together to make an effective narrative.

Also, as a viewer, the film is made for YOU. Therefore you have all the right in the world to critique it. Movies that aren't made for mass consumption are called home movies, and you ain't charged moeny to see them

.

Because there wasn't a single three dimensional character in that film.

Co-Sign


If people aren't into Quentin Tarantino, then they should stay home and watch The Gilmore Girls. Otherwise, check your sensitivity and 'politically correctness' at the door before you see a Tarantino film. Plain and simple.

I personally (having not seen IB) think he has trouble shooting a scene with dialogue that doesn't involve swears and dry witticisms. He's brilliant at those, the problem is that everything else sounds like it came out of a dime store detective novel. You may disagree, but my issues with his films (the ones I dislike) rarely have anything to do with being "PC".


"Jack of all trades, master of none, though ofttimes better than master of one"-Anonymous


The sharpest sword is a word spoken in wrath;the deadliest poison is covetousness;the fiercest fire is hatred; the darkest night is ignorance.-The Buddha

ok, the film had SOME of the Tarantino charm of old about it - probably more than his last few films have managed

but the film overall was basically SADISM. it succeeded in making some of the people in the audience, for a brief stretch of time, just as bad as the Nazis on screen laughing at people getting shot in Nation's Pride

hell Tarantino probably even meant to fuck with their minds (Nation's Pride maybe supposed to remind you of Birth of a Nation), but just cause he meant it doesn't make it nobler. in fact it makes it worse.

i mean at the start, i saw Brad Pitt playing this crazy captain and thought, 'this aint going to work, is it?'
but pretty soon that had moved waaaay down my list of complaints
taking a subject like WW2, and not taking it seriously - that moved way down my list of complaints
the film didn't even take itself seriously

yeah there were some good dialogue-driven scenes but that falls pretty flat without the context being developed like in RD and PF
there were some good shots too but the film is essentially corrupt and i wouldn't recommend it to anyone

because their script lack any REAL emotional depth and its always fucking winking at me, i don't give a fuck about any of those characters...NOT ONE.

now take the cohen bros...they manage to be quirky, but you still get a sense of reality in their shit...the story and the characters.

>because their script lack any REAL emotional depth and its
>always fucking winking at me, i don't give a fuck about any of

Well...as aforementioned in previous posts, Tarantino films ARE NOT for everyone. You and I both know that Tarantino has always taken a sensitive current or historical issue that reflects the society in which we live and then flip it and turn into something satirical and completely outrageous. That's just the type of director he is. What I have a problem with is that many directors have done this, yet Quentin gets all the hate and backlash. It's okay to have opinions about Quentin Tarantino- but I hate when people say they despise Quentin who either haven't seen his movies or have some type of personal animosity towards him.

http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090819/REVIEWS/908199995

He does love him some QT though...

enjoyed it. Christoph Waltz was fucking brilliant. the opening sequence was incredible.

some moments could have been trimmed, as they seemed to just be QT getting a little full-of himself with the dialogue, but other than that the movie paced very well.

pitt was also entertaining as i worried about him carrying on a southern accent (do i need to remind you of 'benjamin button'?)

i want to see it again to really grasp it. but yea, i fucks with it.

podcast: http://preachjacobs.mypodcast.com

official site: http://www.preachjacobs.com


Preach's myspace: http://www.myspace.com/kindablu

Cop it: http://www.cdbaby.com/cd/preachhiphop

>enjoyed it. Christoph Waltz was fucking brilliant.

Just saw it and I have to strongly agree with the above statement!!!! Christoph was AMAZING!!!

Really good movie!!!

>>enjoyed it. Christoph Waltz was fucking brilliant.
>
>Just saw it and I have to strongly agree with the above
>statement!!!! Christoph was AMAZING!!!
>
>Really good movie!!!


I'm so glad Leonardo DiCaprio wasn't chosen for that role of Hans Landa. WTF was Quentin thinking?! Christopher Waltz DESERVES an Oscar, a standing ovation and so much more. I just hope that he continues to get adequate film roles if he chooses to live in America.

thanks for the review. gonna see tonight

Saw the midnite show.. in short, fucking awesome.. Prolly my favorite QT movie since Pulp Fiction. Awesome dialog and funny as hell. There is already talk of a prequel.

The good:
- Christoph Waltz. Terrific, terrific work.
- The cinematography. This is Tarantino's best film in terms of visuals. Sometimes he likes to draw attention to his shots, but here, everything was fluid, and beautifully colored and lit.
- The light/sound. I mean, the man knows how to direct. I don't think that's ever been a question.
- The dialogue. Outside of some gay nerdy movie shit, the most consistently interesting script since Jackie Brown as well. That largely has to do with the film being mostly irony-free.
- Set design. The movie theater in particular is great.
- Melanie Laurent and Diane Kruger. Both are great, and I was surprised by Kruger's German accent and how good it was.
- Fuck it, most of the performances. The crazy former SS basterd. The British guy. The Major who comes to their table in the bar. Fredrick Zoller. All of them were really strong.
- For the first time in Tarantino history, there's a character that dies (hell, a couple of them) that I cared about, that I wanted to see live. I hadn't cared about a Tarantino character since Robert Forster and Pam Grier in Jackie Brown... and they were the only two in Tarantino history. I'd been ENTERTAINED... but never actually cared. Here, a few of the characters? I cared. Not just major ones... minor ones. Is that due to better actors, or the mostly irony-free script? Not sure, you tell me if you agree.

The so-so:
- Brad Pitt. He's trying, and he definitely has a unique character. It just feels like he's trying too hard to match Waltz, who waltzes away with the movie.
- Mike Myers. Sorry, Mike, you did your best, but I totally got Austin Powers flashbacks, lol.
- The structure. Some of the jump cuts to new scenes mid-chapter were disorienting, as was the very end moment. There's just some awkwardness in the film's layout.
- The sadistic violence. I couldn't tell whether Tarantino meant for some of the violence to be treated seriously, or whether he wanted us to go "Awesome!", or whether it alternates. At times I felt he wanted us to say "Awesome!" when I felt it inappropriate, and vice versa. Might just have been me.

The bad:
- The subtitles for some of the scenes made the dialogue really stiff. It's probably the dialogue's fault... but reading it underlined that fact.
- The death of ****** at the end. A huge, huge moment that is treated incredibly casually. Considering what we know about ******, and how important ****** is to everything that everyone is doing, the fact that we get a quick jump cut to his face getting machine gunned in, and then no one really addresses it anymore, yet Tarantino is more than glad to take an extra 15 minutes to play a card game or talk 1920s German film theory... it bothered me immensely, and felt like a wasted opportunity.
- The music cues and titles that were extra-campy. I don't care if they were homages to God-knows-what. They were goofy during menacing moments.
- While most of the underscore music was great, the David Bowie song is wince-worthy, in my opinion. You KNOW it's David Bowie, and it's such a medieval folks singing "We Will Rock You" in A Knight's Tale moment. It sucks you out of what the montage is SUPPOSED to be achieving.
- It's essentially plotless-- the first hour and a half is nothing but character introduction and development-- so unless you are sucked in by that first scene, you are reeeeeeally gonna be bored, lol.

Overall, I'm not sure what I think. I enjoyed the experience, but I don't think it's a great movie by any means. It's very interesting, seeing the Tarantino style mix with this setting, and the visuals and dialogue were among his strongest. It's atypically tongue-out-of-cheek for Tarantino, and while not all of it works, it's worth seeing.

I read Ru-- er, Longo's review (get to it, people) and actually felt the opposite of what he did: I thought there was too much story, and ultimately there was not enough character development for me to care about the Basterd's mission... we only root for them to succeed because, well, they were on the "good side" during WWII; you want Landa to get what's coming to him not because we know he's an Evil Nazi, but because there's more than a hint of a character there... he's hands-down the best-written character in the movie, a slimy and sadistic asshole with irritating lawyer-ish tendencies...

I thought that Christoph Waltz was outstanding; son will be nominated for an Oscar for his performance... I also thought that Brad Pitt gave us another funny reading of a Dim American Male... everyone else in the movie was a blank slate to me, even Shoshanna... it seemed like Eli Roth was cast only to get him more pussy in real life, which is cool if you're Eli Roth, but not so cool if you're the rest of us... Mike Myers was wasted in his one scene...

The movie looked very good, I was amused by the cameo voice-overs (which I will not divulge, so please don't ask); the running time didn't bother me as much as I thought it would, and the major setpiece scenes (the opening, the basement pub scene, and the climax) were all well-written; but again, it was ultimately hard to care about what happened to the Basterds, and even Shoshanna, because Tarantino didn't do the proper character work with these cats off break...

And the King Kong shit. Cmon, Tarantino. Enough, already.

Anyway, all that said, most of it was entertaining, and I wouldn't mind seeing it again...
________________________________________________________________________
"I am a rewriter. I rewrite a number of times. Imaginative richness is born in rewriting." - Bernard Malamud

>And the King Kong shit. Cmon, Tarantino. Enough, already.

You knew he couldn't let sleeping dogs lie.

that's why i nevered liked king kong

The character development left much to be desired. At the end, I had no emotional attachment to any of the characters. Possibly my favorite part of the movie was the one portion where we saw any character out of the bastards: the jewish bear with the bat and breaking the other bastard out of jail

otherwise, i thought it was funny and entertaining....the king kong shit had me shaking my head htough

... I'll just co-sign yours, since you summed up my main feelings on the movie, primarily that I didn't give a shit about the Basterds as individual characters and it really took away from greater enjoyment of the film. Great beginning, and some nice suspenseful filmmaking for the first half of the last chapter, though the ending in the theater -- particularly the re-writing of history -- was just too over the top for me. The middle was mostly "Meh" since it didn't enhance my connection to any character (and while Waltz is great, I didn't even hate Landa enough to want him dead all that much).

Oh, and while I'm not a QT hater nor defender ("Pulp Fiction" is one of my desert island movies, but that's it), I will say that if M. Night had ended one of his films with something as snarky and self-referential as "I think I made my masterpiece," PTP would explode.

I didn't like the film and it's probably my own fault. I was hoping from more from QT but got the standard b-movie, a bloody revenge fantasy and that's what I probably should have gone with.

I agree with Zoo that there were no characters and almost too much story. The actors really carried the film and QT deserves credit for that. But his dialogue, like the film, was empty. In his past films, most of the tangents his character's conversations took also revealed something about themselves. In this film, they were just rambling.

I also completely agree with the critics who say this is a hollow shell of a film. There's no heart at all. It says nothing, means nothing, and I felt nothing.

I didn't think the running time helped it and wouldn't be surprised if even the QT faithful point that out as an issue.

>The actors really carried the film and QT deserves
>credit for that.

There were characters that were only onscreen for a few minutes that I instantly felt a connection to.

In response to you and Zoo saying there's too much story, I see what you're saying, that Tarantino's put too much story in there... but it's weird considering that the film has very little ACTUAL plot. The first three scenes are basically set-up, and the events don't really begin until Chapter 4. It's just "Meet Nazi," "Meet the Basterds," "Meet Shoshana," and then "The Brits have a plan!" He could have began the movie there and revealed the rest of the info through brief flashbacks and the action would have remained exactly the same (though the film would have been far shorter).

While Pulp Fiction was interwoven vignettes, this was the bare bones of two different stories thrown together. It's like someone took two films, cut out all of the character moments and depth, and slapped together all of the violent scenes (or set-up for the violence).

You could cut Shoshana's story out and not have changed the Basterds story at all and vice versa. There is almost a complete disconnect. Neither plan needed the other which is why the end was quite literally overkill. The closest thing to a connection was Landa whom Shoshana apparently didn't really care about and who the Basterds only new by his reputation (which he had before killing Landa's family).

On top of the two separate stories, we were given mini-tales:

- Til Schweiger's character was great but what purpose did he serve? You could cut him out and not change a thing.
- The British soldier was a plot device and there was no need for the long scene with Mike Myers.
- The Jew Bear beating people's heads in had no bearing on anything.
- Even the whole element of the Basterds scalping people wasn't connected to the main plot of the assassination attempt. That was just "cool" but unnecessary backstory.

(And I have absolutely ZERO idea how the hell the storyline of black troops caught behind enemy lines would have fit in. Thank god that got cut out.)

There was a cluttered feel to the film. All of those cuts-away and flashes to Hitler talking about the Bear Jew or the Til Schweiger character flashbacks could have easily been cut from Chapter 2 to make that flow more cohesively too.

This is the problem when a director has so many ideas and refuses to get rid of some of them-- cohesiveness and depth flies out the window, and only those performers with the capability to rise above it can elevate the material. See also: Gangs of New York.

>You could cut Shoshana's story out and not have changed the
>Basterds story at all and vice versa. There is almost a
>complete disconnect. Neither plan needed the other which is
>why the end was quite literally overkill. The closest thing to
>a connection was Landa whom Shoshana apparently didn't really
>care about and who the Basterds only new by his reputation
>(which he had before killing Landa's family).
>
>On top of the two separate stories, we were given mini-tales:
>
>- Til Schweiger's character was great but what purpose did he
>serve? You could cut him out and not change a thing.
>- The British soldier was a plot device and there was no need
>for the long scene with Mike Myers.
>- The Jew Bear beating people's heads in had no bearing on
>anything.
>- Even the whole element of the Basterds scalping people
>wasn't connected to the main plot of the assassination
>attempt. That was just "cool" but unnecessary backstory.
>
>(And I have absolutely ZERO idea how the hell the storyline of
>black troops caught behind enemy lines would have fit in.
>Thank god that got cut out.)
>
>

he's lost his ability to write captivating dialogue, which is what made him great to begin with.

kill bill had an intriguing story and the events flowed together and were cohesive for the most part. plus, the characters were vibrant and creatively stylized. all of which hid the overwhelmingly drab and empty dialogue.

EB possessed none of these qualities and the dialogue was very poor.

it's a revenge fantasy where Jews get to terrorize and kill Germans. The Jew Bear bashing Nazi heads in with a baseball bat while other captive German soldiers sit there terrified hearing his clanging bat coming and shitting their pants watching him bash their comrade to death in front of them is the epitome of that. same with the Basterds scalping Nazis.

>While Pulp Fiction was interwoven vignettes, this was the
>bare bones of two different stories thrown together. It's like
>someone took two films, cut out all of the character moments
>and depth, and slapped together all of the violent scenes (or
>set-up for the violence).

There were plenty of character moments in Basterds, and I dunno how much depth there was to the characters in PF.


>You could cut Shoshana's story out and not have changed the
>Basterds story at all and vice versa. There is almost a
>complete disconnect. Neither plan needed the other which is
>why the end was quite literally overkill.

overkill was the point I think.

The closest thing to
>a connection was Landa whom Shoshana apparently didn't really
>care about

I don't get how she didn't really care about Landa, she was terrified of him.

but yeah Mike Myers was distracting. And was that supposed to be Churchill in the room with them?

No message

And fuck OKP...y'all don't have to agree...

That was the only film I've been to in the past two or three years that received any type of ovation from over 90% of the crowd..and you could tell they MEANT that shit! So again, fuck whoever hatin!

The opening scene alone is worth the price of admission...it is beautifully shot and written with sooo much care, such nuance...such a devotion to getting it right. The most intense scene of the year easily...CLASSIC Tarantino..it was gorgeous!!!

And this man can build up a scene to damn near perfection. I'm no film critic...but hey, I know what I see and hear. There were parts of this film where I was simply in AWE of the way everything fit: from the cinematography, to the score, to the writing, to the acting, to the editing...

You can feel (the way you did in Pulp Fiction) Tarantino behind the camera just as suspenseful, just as hopeful, just as entertained as the audience...he is truly a FAN first and he reinforced that fact with this film

Acting was PHENOMENAL...I mean, dude can cast a fucking film omg!!! Brad Pitt was amazing (Oscar bound), Melanie Laurent was good...but the true star of this film was Christoph FUCKING Waltz!!! The dude was absolutely brilliant...like Daniel Day Lewis brilliant! And all the supporting cast tackled that dialogue like it was their last.

Okay, off his nut sack a min. There were some very slow, uneven parts in this film. You could obviously tell, as everyone knows, he began writing this...stopped...began writing again...stopped...etc. The pacing of the film bordered horrible at times. Also, he did NOT juggle the Americans, British, Nazis and Jews as seamlessly as one would have expected for a film this long in the making. Their were times I was confused with who I watch watching...I think wardrobe could've helped this out by not making everyone's uniform the exact same friggin' grey though, shit!

But there are scenes in this film, particularly during the finale (Chap. 5), where Tarantino basically says, "I can do what your fav director in a million yrs. couldn't do with twice the budget!" You can feel his slyness exuding through the screen during the last 30 min or so. The dude is so wicked. And he doesn't reinvent the wheel here...same tricks he been using for years...he just happens to do it like no other!

So, fuck what cha heard...go see Inglorius Basterds tomorrow!!!

excellent review...the reason i caught that thang early

LOVED IT. Will see again, hope it does numbers, and make the haters even madder.

All I've got to say is fear the Jew Bear.

i KNEW he'd FORCE some dialougue about black folks into this piece of shit and boy did he come through. there was no need for it, but he found it in several throw away lines. why? because he's tarantanko.

soshanna's lover is black. um, why again? oh, just because it's something for him to do...at once, a condescending bone thrown and a cowardly appeasement. it sickened me.

eli roth was a fuckin clown. and i swear several scenes of graphic violence had to have his HEAVY input, because it fucking reaked of that dude. the bat scene and emptying a clip in hitler's face were all eli. i have no doubts.

and the fact that he'll get a pass for toying with history annoys the holy fuck outta me. what's it gonna take for people to realize that all his homages and quirky expostions (i'm tired of seeing shit written out for everyone onscreen and stylized finger-pointing plot advancements) are evidence of LAZY WRITING?!?!?!

i'll take him seriously again when he starts taking himself seriously again. he's afraid of making a straight-on film with 21st century settings and characters. yeah, yeah, yeah...it ain't his style. well, shouldn't EVERYONE get that pass then?

and pitt was fucking terrible. anyone going outta there was to cyse that bamma is on some bullshit. he was brought in for star power, not ability.

jus wondren.

difference is, m.night has been FAIL since unbreakable, with his last film being in the bottom 3 of the worst reviewed films of that year.

for the life of me, i don't understand why he would support someone he obviously despises so much. i mean, other than that he is an ignorant fucking hypocrite.

>he's obsessed with black people
>i KNEW he'd FORCE some dialougue about black folks into this
>piece of shit and boy did he come through. there was no need
>for it, but he found it in several throw away lines. why?
>because he's tarantanko.

what's it gonna take for people
>to realize that all his homages and quirky expostions (i'm
>tired of seeing shit written out for everyone onscreen and
>stylized finger-pointing plot advancements) are evidence of
>LAZY WRITING?!?!?!

>
>and pitt
was brought in for
>star power, not ability.

really though, if you just KNOW you'll probably hate a movie... why go see it? you know you hate tarantino being tarantino, which is probably what he'll give us. so why see it?

Come on Basaglia...no one is gonna be satisfied until you call this the worst movie to ever be put onto celluloid.

Amp up that hate to 11!!

thing I could imagine.

2. i go see EVERYTHING i criticize, unlike you phony fucks.

Why you mad?

Don't worry, I heard they're making a sequel to Lady in the Water.

>soshanna's lover is black. um, why again? oh, just because
>it's something for him to do...at once, a condescending bone
>thrown and a cowardly appeasement. it sickened me.


yup, that was a tremendous bitch move.

i guess i don't hate Nazis enough to enjoy the movie. i didn't care much about most of what happened.

the movie was too much set-up w/o enough pay-off. or w/o enough satisfying pay-off.

i want $6 of the $10 ticket price refunded.

>i guess i don't hate Nazis enough to enjoy the movie.

how do you thnk Gnrl Aldo got the neck rope burn on his neck?

nm

Tarantino's strengths, weaknesses, talent, and limitations are all on display with this movie.

1) Tarantino makes the same movie. over and over again. why? because he can't do anything else. He talked about challenging himself, climbing Mt. Everest with this movie to become the director he needs to be. But, quite honestly, Tarantino is hiding as an artist. He is scared. His Jackie Brown experience scared him and let him know to stick to what he is "good" at, that pulp-fiction, homage, wink-wink sh*t or he'll fall flat on his face and being exposed as a hack of a director.

2) Tarantino repeats himself constantly. Was anybody else taken aback by the couple of source music material he used in the Kill Bill's were used in this film? He is still likes to get away with murder with taking indirect shots at black people with his dialogue. Now his thing is making films where the characters talk about films.

3) Somebody should have never told Tarantino that he writes great dialogue. Because his movies have no pacing at all. There are like 8 scenes in the whole movie. You just sit there watching (or reading if you brought your reading glasses with you) talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk in an entire scene forever. Its like it never ends. It makes you forget entirely the point of scene, the plot, and the premise of the entire movie. you just tune out. N*ggas were falling asleep in the theater. A couple of people walked out. Quite a few bathroom breaks by folks.


Now, the movie, specifically:

Brad Pitt sucked. At times, you needed subtitles because he spoke so fast and incoherently with that poor accent, that lost track of the joke he was trying to make. Honestly, you could have gotten an american version of Christoph Waltz to play Pitt's role, and the movie would have been much stronger. Pitt was selected to put people's asses in the seats.

Christoph Waltz's character is EXCELLENT. TERRIFIC!! He carries the entire movie. His character is what the Joker in the Dark Knight pretended to be. Its just terrible how Tarantiono f*cked up the 7/8's of Waltz' character role in the movie by making him do a 180 and flip on the Nazi's at the end.

i thought most of the German characters in the moive were good, Zoller, Landa, and the officer who detected the guys fake german accent


the Basterds whole entire storyline was uncessary. it was like they didn't even matter in their own movie. no character even mattered. Particularly with Bridget von Hammersmark's character. I was glad the bitch died. Her character was annoying and too extra. the only character in the movie that mattered was Waltz's character and to an extent Soshanna.


I thought the opening sequence was the highlight of the movie. The guy who was hiding jews, did a great acting job. You felt his terror and fear during that entire opening sequence. It really was great, and the it was all downhill from there.

The ending when the whole thing burned down was cool, but the entire ending of the movie was entirely botched and nonsensical. But most folks won't care, because there was fire, and gunshots.

Honestly, Tarantino could have shaved off 45 minutes (At least) of dialogue, and you would have a better movie, and wouldn't lose sight of anything he was trying to say. That shorter movie would have been flawed still, but Tarantino is so in love with his dialogue that he can't part ways with it during the editing process and his movies suffer for it.

whats next after this for Tarantino? the same song

So loudly that the audience started laughing. Then, when the guy behind him kicked his chair to wake him up, he screamed. Another big laugh from the audience.

>I thought the opening sequence was the highlight of the movie.
>The guy who was hiding jews, did a great acting job.

Here's where the script gets really lazy and unsatisfying. There was a lot of build-up, and we in the audience assume Hitler will live. It's just an assumption you make going into a WWII movie. Tarantino wants to give us a surprise and violently murder him. Okay, let's say you're making a "what if?" movie, and Hitler dies. Don't you think the moment of Hitler's death should be given SOME sort of weight, instead of being casually injected into the chaotic proceedings? He was far more interested in letting his characters talk than letting a truly weighty moment sink in, because while Pitt vs. Waltz was fun, it's not what makes a movie great. Real depth is what makes a movie great. Dealing with an alternate reality ending to WWII toys with going towards depth... but then Tarantino ultimately just lets the opportunity fly away.

What reaction did you have to the ending? Did you find it satisfying? Did it hold any weight for you? Did you think it was a stupid thing to try to pull off in the first place?

I think there could be a really interesting movie where Hitler is assassinated and then the world is shown being different. Clearly this is not that movie, and never set out to be that movie. But that type of movie requires a lot of thought, a great deal of intelligence, and a unending source of creativity, which this movie simply didn't have.

>Here's where the script gets really lazy and unsatisfying.
>There was a lot of build-up, and we in the audience assume
>Hitler will live. It's just an assumption you make going into
>a WWII movie. Tarantino wants to give us a surprise and
>violently murder him. Okay, let's say you're making a "what
>if?" movie, and Hitler dies. Don't you think the moment of
>Hitler's death should be given SOME sort of weight, instead of
>being casually injected into the chaotic proceedings? He was
>far more interested in letting his characters talk than
>letting a truly weighty moment sink in, because while Pitt vs.
>Waltz was fun, it's not what makes a movie great. Real depth
>is what makes a movie great. Dealing with an alternate reality
>ending to WWII toys with going towards depth... but then
>Tarantino ultimately just lets the opportunity fly away.
>
>What reaction did you have to the ending? Did you find it
>satisfying? Did it hold any weight for you? Did you think it
>was a stupid thing to try to pull off in the first place?
>

i disagree.

Hilter, is an historical figure, which goes without saying. YES, he should be given weight, BUT....not in this movie.

why?

Because, Landa is bigger than Hitler in this film. Its not like Valkarie. Where, Hitler was such a big central force of focus in that movie, and the whole plot was to kill him. There was so much tension and angst around that character. He was such a mythical figure in Valkarie. And he had a certain kind of power in that movie. In 'Basterds, Hitler is like a cartoon character. the real "axis of evil" in "...Basterds" is Landa's character. And I think Tarantino totally dropped the ball with making Landa just switch sides just easily after all that build-up of his character in the movie.

seeing Hilter getting blasted and Soshanna getting her revenge and saying what she said in her recorded message on the movie screen, was a consolation prize for not seeing Landa getting taken down. Putting a swastika on his forehead was lazy and pandering to meatheads who will eat up anything Tarantino makes.

>I think there could be a really interesting movie where Hitler
>is assassinated and then the world is shown being different.
>Clearly this is not that movie, and never set out to be that
>movie. But that type of movie requires a lot of thought, a
>great deal of intelligence, and a unending source of
>creativity, which this movie simply didn't have.

i think you just said it

"never set out to be that movie"


what we are seeing now from Tarantino is he'll pick a genre or genres and hodgepodge them up, and than just Tarantino it with waaaaaaaaaay too much dialogue about nothing. every movie will be a least 2 hours and 20 minutes. there will be no pacing. no character development, just stick-figure caricatures. f*ck a plot, f*ck a storyline, f*ck a premise.

Tarantino stopped growing after Pulp Fiction. its too bad Reservoir Dogs didn't blow-up and Pulp Fiction did. You may have seen a different and evolved Tarantino in 2009 than the one that exists now (or maybe not).

>Tarantino stopped growing after Pulp Fiction. its too bad
>Reservoir Dogs didn't blow-up and Pulp Fiction did. You may
>have seen a different and evolved Tarantino in 2009 than the
>one that exists now (or maybe not).

Pulp Fiction is infinitely better than Reservoir Dogs though on dozens of levels.

>Hilter, is an historical figure, which goes without saying.
>YES, he should be given weight, BUT....not in this movie.
>
>why?
>
>Because, Landa is bigger than Hitler in this film. Its not
>like Valkarie. Where, Hitler was such a big central force of
>focus in that movie, and the whole plot was to kill him. There
>was so much tension and angst around that character. He was
>such a mythical figure in Valkarie. And he had a certain kind
>of power in that movie. In 'Basterds, Hitler is like a cartoon
>character. the real "axis of evil" in "...Basterds" is Landa's
>character. And I think Tarantino totally dropped the ball with
>making Landa just switch sides just easily after all that
>build-up of his character in the movie.

And it's even worse when Shoshana realizes Landa is in town but then doesn't do anything towards exacting revenge against him personally.

The Landa turncoat thing was just very sloppy. I watch the entire shoe fits scene in which he murders Hammersmark and THEN he changes side? I guess you could rationalize it as he killed her so fewer people would know the truth of his treachery but the whole thing still made no sense to me.

And that's the big problem with character depth. He goes from loving the name Jew Hunter to hating it and we never see why.


>what we are seeing now from Tarantino is he'll pick a genre or
>genres and hodgepodge them up, and than just Tarantino it with
>waaaaaaaaaay too much dialogue about nothing. every movie will
>be a least 2 hours and 20 minutes. there will be no pacing. no
>character development, just stick-figure caricatures. f*ck a
>plot, f*ck a storyline, f*ck a premise.

I wrote it in my blog but I think the oxymoron that is Tarantino is that he makes self-indulgent homages. It's somewhat fascinating. How can a guy with so much self-confidence in his own stuff also not have the drive to create wholly original material?

totally!

he recognized her, she recognized him, and NEITHER of them did anything about it. after i sat through that opening scene i wanted the 2 of them to meet. i wanted a confrontation. i wanted a bloody end to the confrontation. i got nothing. nothing!

just...ugh.

>he recognized her

Landa's a detective. Not to mention, an intelligent and sadistic prick. So, if we put the two together, we get a guy who would recognize someone who escaped from him, but, being that he's a detective -- and intelligent and sadistic prick -- he's going to fuck with the person. It's a game of cat-and-mouse for him.

SoWhat was just impatient with the way the story unfolded, which is interesting, seeing as he cited the opening scene where we first see Landa doing his "intelligent and sadistic prick" thing...
________________________________________________________________________
"I am a rewriter. I rewrite a number of times. Imaginative richness is born in rewriting." - Bernard Malamud

>Landa's a detective. Not to mention, an intelligent and
>sadistic prick. So, if we put the two together, we get a guy
>who would recognize someone who escaped from him, but, being
>that he's a detective -- and intelligent and sadistic prick --
>he's going to fuck with the person. It's a game of
>cat-and-mouse for him.
>

>SoWhat was just impatient with the way the story unfolded,
>which is interesting, seeing as he cited the opening scene
>where we first see Landa doing his "intelligent and sadistic
>prick" thing...


but with the opening scene he finally kills he french dude and jews who were hiding. (the fact that he let Soshanna go in the 1st place is puzzling.)

then he chokes the sh*t out of Hammersmark after a little "cat-chase-mouse".

but with Soshanna, she got 2 passes? or was Landa on the fence all along and thats why he let her go twice? And maybe Hammersmark was on the fence, playing both sides like Landa was, and he choked out Hammersmark so she wouldn't rat him out to the Germans?

its confusing, the way the story unfolds. a lot of holes, imo

>but with the opening scene he finally kills he french dude and
>jews who were hiding.

Yes...


>then he chokes the sh*t out of Hammersmark after a little
>"cat-chase-mouse".

Yes...


>but with Soshanna, she got 2 passes?

Yes. Because, again, he's a cat chasing a mouse. And at some point -- whether it be a few minutes from now, or a few YEARS down the line -- he's going to catch that mouse. That's Landa. That's who he is. He's a good (and clearly arrogant) detective who knows he's smarter than the prey he's pursuing.


>or was Landa on the fence
>all along and thats why he let her go twice?

I don't believe he was on the fence. Again, he's an arrogant prick who just knows (based on how he gets down as a detective) that he's going to find this girl down the line.


>And maybe
>Hammersmark was on the fence, playing both sides like Landa
>was, and he choked out Hammersmark so she wouldn't rat him
>out to the Germans?

Didn't she say at one point that she was a double agent?


>its confusing, the way the story unfolds. a lot of holes, imo

I don't think there are that many holes, especially in regard to a character who is intelligent/slimy by nature...
______________________________________________________________________
THINK FOR YOURSELFS! DO THE CONTRARIAN!

>
>>but with Soshanna, she got 2 passes?
>
>Yes. Because, again, he's a cat chasing a mouse. And at some
>point -- whether it be a few minutes from now, or a few YEARS
>down the line -- he's going to catch that mouse. That's
>Landa. That's who he is. He's a good (and clearly arrogant)
>detective who knows he's smarter than the prey he's pursuing.
>

so how did dumb ass Aldo Raine outsmart him in the end?

it betrays everything Landa was built up and developed to be in the movie.

>
>>or was Landa on the fence
>>all along and thats why he let her go twice?
>
>I don't believe he was on the fence. Again, he's an arrogant
>prick who just knows (based on how he gets down as a
>detective) that he's going to find this girl down the line.
>

but he already found her.

when he finds somebody he kills them.

1) like the french dude
2) like the jews hiding in the french dudes house
3) like Hammersmark

....but unlike Shosanna on two occasions (c) the deele

>
>>And maybe
>>Hammersmark was on the fence, playing both sides like Landa
>>was, and he choked out Hammersmark so she wouldn't rat him
>>out to the Germans?
>
>Didn't she say at one point that she was a double agent?
>

i dont' know, so much dialogue to sift through the movie and keep track.

i forgot what the whole actual point of operation kino after they start breaking down types of german accents and king kong.

>
>>its confusing, the way the story unfolds. a lot of holes,
>imo
>
>I don't think there are that many holes, especially in regard
>to a character who is intelligent/slimy by nature...

a character who is cunning, witty, manipulative, caluclating and shrewed all but until the end of the movie, which basically kills everything that made dude special, no homo.

i don't know. Tarantino went the Spike-Lee way out with the ending of his movie. He didn't know how to end it, and it came off in the movie.

>so how did dumb ass Aldo Raine outsmart him in the end?

Aldo "outsmarted" him by shooting a lackey and carving a swastika into Landa's forehead. Is that really "outsmarting" Landa? In one sense, yes, it is, since it's the one thing Landa didn't count on. Why do you think he's got that smug smirk on his face? He really believes he's about to get his way. And while it's implied that he will get his way, he's been branded, which he doesn't count on.

On the other hand, Landa's still going to get immunity, a house, etc. , even with a swastika brand. So, again, did Aldo really outsmart him?


>it betrays everything Landa was built up and developed to be
>in the movie.

Actually, it doesn't. Hence, the smirk. He really believes he's about to get over on the stupid, brute Americans. And he's right, but at a cost.


>>I don't believe he was on the fence. Again, he's an
>arrogant
>>prick who just knows (based on how he gets down as a
>>detective) that he's going to find this girl down the line.
>>
>but he already found her.

He found her in the first scene, *and let her go*. Why? Because, again, he's arrogant enough to believe that his detective work is going to eventually suss her out.


>when he finds somebody he kills them.
>
>1) like the french dude
>2) like the jews hiding in the french dudes house
>3) like Hammersmark
>
>....but unlike Shosanna on two occasions (c) the deele

Mindfuck. He knows who she is. He has an idea why she's there. But he'd rather twist the knife (figuratively speaking) rather than literally pull a knife and gut her right there in the cafe. He's fucking with her. That's why he starts to pose a question, then pull back and say that he "forgot." He knows exactly what he's doing.

Also, it's important to note that she was at that cafe as a guest of Zoeller, who was tight with Goebbels. Do you honestly believe that he would pull rank and peel Shoshanna's cap right there, in public?

1) He killed the French dude in private.
2) He killed the Jews hiding in the French dudes house... in private.
3) He killed Von Hammersmark in private.

I also believe that a character like Landa -- who let's remember is an official detective -- would be mindful of where he is before he just pulls out a gun or puts his hands around a chick's throat.

In a sense, you're trying to argue that he's a cold-blooded killer. He's not.

I mean, you *could* argue that he could have just outed her right there and had her arrested. But to a guy like Landa, where's the fun in that?


>>Didn't she say at one point that she was a double agent?
>>
>
>i dont' know, so much dialogue to sift through the movie and
>keep track.
>i forgot what the whole actual point of operation kino after
>they start breaking down types of german accents and king
>kong.

from themoviespoiler.com:

>Chapter Four: Operation Kino

In an English country estate, Lt. Archie Hicox meets with General Ed Fenech (Mike Myers) and Winston Churchill. Fenech and Hicox discuss Hicox’s undercover operations in Germany and Hicox’s fluent German and how it makes him a prime candidate for “Operation Kino.”... Fenech briefs Hicox on his mission: In Three Days, the premiere of “Nation’s Pride” will be held in a theater. All of the Nazi High Command will be present and the goal of the operation is to blow up the theater with the Nazis in it. Hicox will rendezvous with the Basterds, go to a village called “Nadine” and meet a German double agent who will get Hicox into the premiere along with the two German speaking members of the Basterds. The double agent is famous German movie star Bridget Von Hammersmark.


I pasted this just to jog my memory, it may or may not be correct, but I do remember *someone* remarking on the fact that she was a double agent... whether it was here, or if it was Bridget herself in the pub scene...


>>I don't think there are that many holes, especially in
>regard
>>to a character who is intelligent/slimy by nature...
>
>a character who is cunning, witty, manipulative, caluclating
>and shrewed all but until the end of the movie, which
>basically kills everything that made dude special, no homo.

I think he's shrewd up until the very end, when he's branded, which is the one thing he didn't count on. That said, it's not like he's killed by Aldo and Utivich, who in essence concede that he's going to get away with what he's done. I don't see how him being branded seriously undermines his character or suggests that QT didn't know how to end his movie. He's still going to get what he wanted, right?

And I also think there's been WAY too much emphasis on "well but he had said one thing, but THEN he switched it up and said something else entirely wtf"... the point is, was, and will always be that this guy is a snake who would turn on his own nation to save his ass. It really gets no more complex than that.

People here (not you) are putting way too much on the word of a man who had proven to be slippery with his words.


>i don't know. Tarantino went the Spike-Lee way out with the
>ending of his movie. He didn't know how to end it, and it came
>off in the movie.

I dunno, I think he got the ending *he* wanted, which doesn't quite jibe with the ending *we* wanted.
______________________________________________________________________
THINK FOR YOURSELFS! DO THE CONTRARIAN!

although Hitler and friends are featured in the film they are only caricatures - getting in depth on a historical figure isn't ideal for a work of fiction

so Tarantino focussed on the Lando character
the dude is a megalomaniac
when Nazi germany is doing well, he identifies with them for his own aggrandizement
when the tide turns, he sells them up the river, for his own aggrandizement

but the megalomaniac's downfall is always his overconfidence
just like Hitler swept to power, then got too cocky and got wiped out just as quickly,
Lando thinks he's engineered and executed the most brilliant plan... and can't imagine it going wrong

the film was wack but i think Lando's character was the one intelligent, insightful part of the film

i've seen my cat chase after a bug for a while and then get bored w/it and just move on to something else. this usually happens after he's immobilized the bug but hasn't killed it yet. once it stops moving he loses interest.

LOL

maybe that's what happened w/Landa and Shoshanna.

>>Hilter, is an historical figure, which goes without saying.
>>YES, he should be given weight, BUT....not in this movie.
>>
>>why?
>>
>>Because, Landa is bigger than Hitler in this film. Its not
>>like Valkarie. Where, Hitler was such a big central force of
>>focus in that movie, and the whole plot was to kill him.
>There
>>was so much tension and angst around that character. He was
>>such a mythical figure in Valkarie. And he had a certain
>kind
>>of power in that movie. In 'Basterds, Hitler is like a
>cartoon
>>character. the real "axis of evil" in "...Basterds" is
>Landa's
>>character. And I think Tarantino totally dropped the ball
>with
>>making Landa just switch sides just easily after all that
>>build-up of his character in the movie.
>
>And it's even worse when Shoshana realizes Landa is in town
>but then doesn't do anything towards exacting revenge against
>him personally.
>
>The Landa turncoat thing was just very sloppy. I watch the
>entire shoe fits scene in which he murders Hammersmark and
>THEN he changes side? I guess you could rationalize it as he
>killed her so fewer people would know the truth of his
>treachery but the whole thing still made no sense to me.
>

damn, i didn't even think about that. he was so set on killing her too, down for the cause, just the way he was strangling her. and then 5 minutes later, where he is about to win, he wants to make deal with America? lol

doesn't make sense at all

>And that's the big problem with character depth. He goes from
>loving the name Jew Hunter to hating it and we never see why.
>

yep, within a blink of an eye.

>
>>what we are seeing now from Tarantino is he'll pick a genre
>or
>>genres and hodgepodge them up, and than just Tarantino it
>with
>>waaaaaaaaaay too much dialogue about nothing. every movie
>will
>>be a least 2 hours and 20 minutes. there will be no pacing.
>no
>>character development, just stick-figure caricatures. f*ck a
>>plot, f*ck a storyline, f*ck a premise.
>
>I wrote it in my blog but I think the oxymoron that is
>Tarantino is that he makes self-indulgent homages. It's
>somewhat fascinating. How can a guy with so much
>self-confidence in his own stuff also not have the drive to
>create wholly original material?

well, i think he is not confident at all. he is highly insecure. i would suspect behind close doors, he is a miserable guy who is not free at all.

see, Pulp Fiction f*cked his head up on a lot of levels. he got praised for flawed worked, or even if you think its great, he got praised as if he walked on water and needed no improvements,despite it was only his 2nd film.

i think he *would like* to break free from what he is doing. he *tried* somewhat with Jackie Brown. and his core fanbase was indifferent towards it. so he comes back with the Kill Bills and he was winning again.

then he became totally self-indulgent and made Death Proof which flopped. But, his ego would make him believe that was Rodriguez's fault, and not his own poor writing of that movie.

so now he is back with 'Basterds and its the same ole sh*t. dialogue, upon dialogue, upon dialogue. He is so hung up on dialogue he forgets he is making a movie. which extends to a lot of things other than just dialogue.

Tarantino is a poser. He is not a rebel. See, a true artist has balls. They take risks. Which means, they more than likely will fail along the way and have some successes. He is afraid of failure. Failure means you'll lose cool points. And Tarantino, being a dork for all of his life, needs and yearns to be cool. Tarantino has played it safe for much of his career since Pulp Fiction. He needs that type of adulation or he can't function as a person. He needs to be viewed as cool. So he'll continue to make these schlocky films. Where the only difference is the genre. Everything else is the same Tarantino schtick.

Tarantino is stuck.

He wants to break free, but his limited talent betrays that aspiration.

He wants to break free, but his fanbase keeps him in check. they can't get enough of his Pulp-Fiction derivative work.

So he has to go on pretending.

that was fucking stupid. maybe he didn't think anyone would remember between all the other bullshit he threw up on that screen.

that was a colossal mistake. it cannot be overstated how bad that was.

Christope Waltz just did too good a job of selling it.

Hitler mentioned that the Americans were "on the beach" so the tide was turning. Landa knew this and decided to switch sides while the getting was good. He uncovered a plot and figured out a way that he could make himself the hero. Still, he was egotistical and wanted to fuck with the Americans and Hammersmark before setting it into motion.

And I guess killing Hammersmark had to do with Landa's thinking he was the smartest of the Germans and he had to show her that she couldn't outwit him. I guess.

Still, in terms of how the characters were set-up, the whole "I hate the Jew Hunter name" stuff didn't make much sense. He opens the scene saying that the Basterds wouldn't show him any mercy but then he plays to their mercy, claiming he didn't like the Jew Hunter name. Even if he's full of shit, demeaning himself seems out of character.

I think you can make sense of everything but Tarantino's lack of follow through on the characters and story (focusing more on cool tangents) deadened the moments and cost the film its heart.

I think it's the latter... the guy is a master bullshitter, so (as I remember the scene) it's not so much him literally demeaning himself as it is buttering up the Allies...
________________________________________________________________________
"I am a rewriter. I rewrite a number of times. Imaginative richness is born in rewriting." - Bernard Malamud

First off, yes. He's downplaying the title he earned. So whether or not he means it, he's demeaning himself and swallowing his pride (despite being completely in control of the situation). It makes no sense.

Also, Landa acknowledged that the Basterds show no mercy so why, seconds later, would be play up his innocence for mercy. He realizes that the Basterds don't response to buttering up... and then tries to butter them up?

If someone else besides the Basterds were there or he was saying it to the Generals on the two-way radio, then it would make sense. He could sell the bullshit to them and the Basterds could see through it (or just not care).

As it was, there was no reason for him to be coy with the Basterds. He knew it would get him nowhere. In the end, all that mattered was that he could win the war and the Basterds needed him to get their mission accomplished.

didn't 4 years pass in the movie between the first scene and the end?

his character couldn't change in 4 years? , he knows the americans have stormed normandy and sees the writing on the wall. he bargains for protections from war crime tribunals...he's looking out for himself. he's beginning to realize how his role in the genocide will be seen/ how it will cost him if the germans lose the war, hence the whole deal he makes with the allied forces.

i saw it as more of an evolution in his character whereas instead of just being a "jew hunter" he transcends that and just cares about the chase and capture...the thrill of the hunt. he's a detective. the flip of that is the way he doesn't want to be known as a jew-killer...he is thinking about his legacy. when he chokes out ol' girl with such hatred you see him lose composure the only time in the movie more or less, probably b/c he blames people like her who have turned on germany and have fucked up all he's strived to succeed.

that's what i got out of it.

while hitler is just a carricature, col. landa represents the hands and feet of the nazi forces doing the dirty work so you hate him more and see him as a more palpable evil.

that's why the whole flip landa pulls at the end seems so outlandish...hitler's death is meant to be slightly unfulfilling b/c you really want to see col. landa get what he deserves more and you realize that when he seemingly gets away. then when he's in the jeep playing with aldo's knife it's just a fucked up image where this bastard has seemingly engineered an escape from the very instrument he seemed destined for to give the audience closure.

that's why that knife carving a swastika into his skull ends the movie, it's meant to be more satisfying than seeing hitler die.

that's what happens in GOOD MOVIES. but, with tarantino he always gets the benefit of the doubt, like "of course landa changed...people change"

garbage. i ain't read the rest of your shit, because that just started your reply off all wrong.

of which I feel people are glazing over too.

He choked out the Hammershank or whatever bitch and then turned coat shortly after..? The fuck was the point in that? Why choke her out if your decision to turn it over was already being contemplated...

Now that I'm reading this discussion, the writing in this flick WAS rather lazy.

>And that's the big problem with character depth. He goes from
>loving the name Jew Hunter to hating it and we never see why.

"the guy is a master bullshitter, so (as I remember the scene) it's not so much him literally demeaning himself as it is buttering up the Allies.." -ZooTown74

>I think there could be a really interesting movie where Hitler
>is assassinated and then the world is shown being different.
>Clearly this is not that movie, and never set out to be that
>movie. But that type of movie requires a lot of thought, a
>great deal of intelligence, and a unending source of
>creativity, which this movie simply didn't have.

I think there could be a really interesting movie about how the criminal activities of the mafia can permeate society and affect regular working class people who get caught up in the perils of gambling and prostitution and drugs and those problems then ripple out in the greater community and affect all of us. Too bad The Godfather didn't have the ambition or intelligence or unending source of creativity to address those issues. Instead its creators glorified the mob and envisioned an isolated world for it to inhabit.

My point is, its one thing to criticize plot points, but you're suggesting an entirely different plot altogether that was well outside of the scope and intention of this movie.

You're initial review is pretty on point though.

as far as i know, there wasn't a rogue band of jewish soldiers roaming the french countryside, scalping German officers.

so why the fuck are you so caught up in the fact that they killed Hitler and didn't make a bigger deal about it? Hitler wasn't the point of this movie AT ALL. his story's been told...a million times. he was a bit player in the story of these guys and a theatre owner.

do you wish Hitler was a bigger deal because of your personal, historical knowledge of the man? it just FEELS like he should've been the focus?

it would've been jarring as fuck if they had stopped the momentum of the final theatre scene to focus on Hitler's death when he had only been in 2 scenes previously.

this movie was about Landa. he was the villain. and a FANTASTIC villain at that.

i sear y'all pick the most trivial shit to focus on and allow that to ruin movies for you. is that why y'all love dumb shit like Transformers and G.I. Joe? because there's really NOTHING to focus on? you can just let it wash over you like a warm, thick cloud of garbage fumes and drift away on a blissful stream of stupidity.

>as far as i know, there wasn't a rogue band of jewish
>soldiers roaming the french countryside, scalping German
>officers.

I know.

>so why the fuck are you so caught up in the fact that they
>killed Hitler and didn't make a bigger deal about it? Hitler
>wasn't the point of this movie AT ALL. his story's been
>told...a million times. he was a bit player in the story of
>these guys and a theatre owner.

I know he wasn't the point. But he's such a big deal in the context of the film, including TO the characters, that I felt that way.

>do you wish Hitler was a bigger deal because of your personal,
>historical knowledge of the man? it just FEELS like he
>should've been the focus?

Was he not also the focus of the assassination attempt at the theatre? Once they heard he was gonna be there, did the gravity of the situation not blow them away?

>it would've been jarring as fuck if they had stopped the
>momentum of the final theatre scene to focus on Hitler's death
>when he had only been in 2 scenes previously.

But they'd talked about him far more than in 2 scenes.

>this movie was about Landa. he was the villain. and a
>FANTASTIC villain at that.

Agreed.

>i sear y'all pick the most trivial shit to focus on and allow
>that to ruin movies for you. is that why y'all love dumb shit
>like Transformers and G.I. Joe? because there's really
>NOTHING to focus on? you can just let it wash over you like a
>warm, thick cloud of garbage fumes and drift away on a
>blissful stream of stupidity.

Well, that has nothing to do with my point, lol. This movie doesn't want to be Transformers or GI Joe, so no, I'm not going to hold it to the same standard.

the movie makes a point to not paint hitler as the ultimate/only enemy. that's too easy for the filmmaker and the audience.

"The national Jewish Daily Forward calls it "Jewish revenge porn." In Connecticut's Jewish Ledger, Michael Fox writes that since the film doesn't pretend to be historically accurate, "there's no percentage in railing against as blathering, self-indulgent drivel." Nevertheless, he writes, Tarantino's plot amounts to "pages and pages and pages of amusingly pointless dialogue." He concludes, "Tarantino's riff on Nazis and Jews may amuse and satisfy less mature audiences. For those with a deeper and fuller understanding of the Third Reich and the Holocaust, particularly one gleaned from sources other than action movies, it is shockingly superficial.""

Even if you like the film, I think there's no way one can deny that all of this is true.

Come on, Frank. That's a supreme reach.

I mean, can't you just be entertained...damn. You CANNOT tell me the audience you saw this with wasn't entertained...even if you were not.

Some people try and compare this guy's films to other films, "classic" or standard films...you can't! And that's why folks show up! We know what we're getting into. And yes, we KNOW it's gonna be the same style, sequence, etc...but that's what we love about this guy. We been knowing that shit since everything post-RD.

He just doe's "Tarantino" better than anyone who attempts to do "Tarantino." He also does some things even your favorite director couldn't do in a million yrs...even if you gave them a dreamlike budget with A list actors.

So shit...stop scutinizing so much and get over yourselves and your shitty nitpicks for once. Stop crying and about subtleties here, nuances there...

Shit, that opening scene was so friggin great...and I bet you...all your chips that your fav director couldn't even pull THAT off...let alone have the imagination to write a story as creative as the one we have here.

So quit it with all your pretentious bullshit. Enjoy life and get some pussy...pussies

________________________________________________________________________
"I am a rewriter. I rewrite a number of times. Imaginative richness is born in rewriting." - Bernard Malamud

1. Make a statement: Tarantino is better than your favorite director.
2. Then disqualify actually judging the films as pussy (or lack thereof)

He can't lose because the simple act of making an opposing argument disqualifies you as pretentious.

That being said, Tarantino is The Coen Brothers for Dummies. He goes for cool over smart, highlights his dialogue because it's really cool (and doesn't care if it serves a purpose), and he loves violence, not for the perverse comedy, but because it's really fucking cool.

>1. Make a statement: Tarantino is better than your favorite
>director.
>2. Then disqualify actually judging the films as pussy (or
>lack thereof)
>
>He can't lose because the simple act of making an opposing
>argument disqualifies you as pretentious.
>
>That being said, Tarantino is The Coen Brothers for Dummies.
>He goes for cool over smart, highlights his dialogue because
>it's really cool (and doesn't care if it serves a purpose),
>and he loves violence, not for the perverse comedy, but
>because it's really fucking cool.

for going all "FUCK THA HATERS I DON'T CARE WHAT YALL SAY" and then later making another post complaining about the haters. That's really an L every time, IMO.

.

"Hi"-(c)Joker

Get off his dick....

"Jack of all trades, master of none, though ofttimes better than master of one"-Anonymous


The sharpest sword is a word spoken in wrath;the deadliest poison is covetousness;the fiercest fire is hatred; the darkest night is ignorance.-The Buddha

...And the big dog of my day goes to ^^^^

most of the reviews in this thread are right. Lots of unnecessary dialog. I even agree that the Basterds were almost irrelevant in their own movie. But it was all well-done and entertaining to me. Also, I was quite shocked, since I can't stand most movies that run over 2 hours, that in a 2.5 hour dialog-dependent movie, I didn't feel like it dragged out.

Well done, entertaining, amazing characters and performances, great visuals, several extremely memorable scenes. Nothing deep but I don't think that's what it was going for.

And the black people stuff... I didn't find it that bad in itself, but because it added absolutely nothing to the movie, I think it should have been left out. QT didn't even use it to make me hate the nazis more. It was like a comic sideshow content to the movie. Poor taste

absence, Al_Tru_Ist, BreezeBoogie, dank_reggae, Drewmathic, Ir_Cuba, jacksonwonderland, LBs Finest, LML, LVing, MIAthinker, Omar_Medina, Robert, Roofdogg10, Sandbox194, Supnakga, thafuture, wonderl33t

Is that where about 95% of the hate on this board for QT comes from?

HONEST question.

I think Reservoir Dogs and Pulp Fiction are great films. I also really like True Romance. Yes, they were homages but they also had a fresh take on the genres.

Since then, Tarantino just makes genre films. He is still great with actors and creates some tremendous scenes but he doesn't even try to make good films. He goes in with the idea of "I'm making a b-movie" so that it kind of rationalizes why he's more focused on being cool than actually telling a cohesive story or creating characters with depth.

He's completely devolved into a guy who showed how the characters in B-movies affected one another to someone who just shows violence and cool dialogue because he likes it.

He's become the B-Movie director he always wanted to be. Sadly, he was actually better than that when he started.

He's so damn good with a camera, and he has a great eye for actors... it's a shame that he can't edit for shit and his ideas always make his movies slip into over-the-top entertainment (if that) and nothing deeper.

Honestly though, and this goes for all forms of entertainment, I'm not sure that when something is not "deep" that it's automatically inferior.

Depth CAN add to piece of work, but I'm not sure the "lack of depth" actually detracts from something by default.

And actually, typing this I'm starting to think that we may be applying the word 'depth' in different contexts. I'm referring to the term with respect to depth of meaning or overall message, not depth in terms of character development. I just don't think something has to have meaning in order to be good, or that some deep meaning by definition improves on something...

I think evaluating ANYTHING involves looking at what it intends to do and how well it does it.

I don't think that something has to have meaning if its not designed for that purpose. For example, I am the Walrus is a brilliantly executed song, but there is no deep meaning behind it. There is no point in examining the manner in which it presents its "message", because there is none.

If a song or movie or book is written with the goal of preaching some sort of message or idea, then its fair to judge it on those grounds.

Obviously you judge a comedy differently than a drama, right? You judge a comedy by how funny it is, an action movie by how well the action is executed, etc. so why judge a tongue-in-cheek semi-satire on whether or not it had any deeper meaning? I'm not evaluating Paul Pierce on yards after the catch.

I mean, what was THE POINT of Goodfellas? That the life of a career criminal is a perilous one? That loyalty is important? That an outsider can never be fully trusted? That extended time spent away from moral society in an isolated network of like minded people will eventually breed an acceptance of lawlessness? That once you get hooked on blow you're finished? That snitching gets you off the hook, but there's a question as to whether or not its worth it because you can't get good marinara sauce anymore? Fuck that. Great movie. One of the best of all movies, but that shit ain't saying anything deep. It wasn't trying to either. Who cares.

and when we start giving out passes for that shit...well, y'all have offically gone overboard defended this guy.

Hell, three of my favorite movies this year are Taken, The Hangover, and Drag Me to Hell. There's not much depth to any of those and Raimi's flick was 100% b-movie.

My issue with Basterds is that it seems like Tarantino uses the fact that he's making a B-Movie to excuse his sloppy storytelling. He thinks he can focus on his dialogue and just crafting individual scenes and, if it doesn't all come together, just say, "Hey, it's a B-movie" to get away with it.

Thought it was really funny. Audience responded really well to it last night. My only problem with it is that the Basterds are not in the film.

First off, I thought Pitt was hilarious.

Next - I get everyone's points on the over the top violence, on the King Kong thing, all that. I totally get it and I don't disagree.

Next - Mike Myers. I asked my wife after the movie, "QT had to have known it was FUNNY to see him like that right? Like all people could think was Austin Powers, right?" - we both agreed that had to be intentional. Nevertheless I hate that guy.

Overall, I thought it was what it promised. I understand the criticism of Landa's turn, but I got the sense he was a guy who really wanted his legacy to be that of whatever history deemed "correct". It's why he was cherishing his "Jew Hunter" nickname in 1941, but in 1944 he was hating it. He wanted to be on whatever was the "right" side. Speaking of Landa - Waltz played him to perfection. Excellent job.

Great production design, great characters, and very entertaining. I loved it. I definitely thought it was world's better than Death Proof. I did cringe a bit at the Olympic talk and the King Kong talk, as well as Tarantino's need to be the ultimate fucking movie geek (you could have eliminated 15 minutes in just chatting about films), but regardless I dug it.

Just saying.

This will be his biggest opening.

Yep, it's working!

But since the movie isn't gonna flop, I'll take a half-L, seeing as how it didn't force a flop. However, basically after that one day, there was zero buzz surrounding that trailer, pro or con.

shit is garbage and has NO legs.

This will be his biggest opening, definitely. And I think with international box office, it'll do alright. But it won't be a hit here... I think it will likely top out right after it breaks even. Its "that was fun, let's go see it again" factor is quite low.

> Its "that was fun, let's go see it again" factor
>is quite low.


I really disagree. I'd like to see it again.

man shut the fuck up already
truth is this is a highly entertaining and creative film
regardless of your opinion on it
I wish even just half of mainstream American cinema was as entertaining as this movie
you spoke your piece & plastered your horrible blog everywhere
Time for u to shut up now
after seeing it last night, I would mos def see it again
i might even bother to pay another 10.25 for it
Maybe just out of spite to the fucking loser who said he bougt a ticket to time travellers wife then snuck in
& from the applause in the theater & sold out showings @ my cinema i can guarantee you others would check this shit again
This film is by no means perfect and i certainly wouldn't ride for it in most arguments, but something about you being a film crtic irks me
your review of "the Goods" was just spot on by the way
another reason to never listen to any of you

I guess there's no rule that L's have to be taken gracefully...
So you deal with your letter however you want.

Sidenote: didnt you feel just a little corny (gay) saying "time travelers wife at Noon please"
& dont say you had a female with you because I hate liars

im outta here

I liked the movie more than you think I did. Just because I'm the only one who ever wrote an article about how QT desperately needs to edit his films better doesn't mean I hate his work. He's interesting. He's just content making B-movie flicks like this recently, which is frustrating.

The man's great with a camera. He has a great eye for casting. But he needs to edit, and he needs better story structure with more character depth and more meaning. The final one is objective (more meaning), but the first three are absolutely true.

And I can't tell whether you agreed with my review of The Goods or not... but thanks for reading.

don't know if you're kidding, but you do sound like a douche.
__________________________________________

artisticalliance.org
podcast: Freakin Awesome Podcast on iTunes.

*people's eyebrow@timetraveler's wife*

not really interested in debating, dissecting or defending it tho - you guys have fun w/ that, tarantino talk is a zero-sum game round these parts

one thought tho: interesting to imagine sandler + dicap dogg - original choices for the donny + landa roles - and how they'd have played them differently

i say sandler's prolly an upgrade (roth did his thing but adam fucking nails that part) but no way leo d even comes close to what waltz did (that was supporting-oscar-worthy work, melanie laurent too)

I could see him delving into his inner "Punch-Drunk Love" character in the bat scene.

I have to say I don't quite know what to make of it thoroughly enjoyed it. It seems to be beyond stupid yet really smart simultaneously.

Loved it even more the second time...great film!

Carry on the hate...

Will likely see it again next weekend.

it's like this - there's two stages to his career

there was the moral era
and then there was the aesthetic era

True Romance, Natural Born Killers, Reservoir Dogs, Pulp Fiction and Jackie Brown were moralistic films primarily, which of course comes from the writing

Kill Bill vol.1, Kill Bill vol.2, Death Proof and now Inglorious Basterds were primarily just about the aesthetic, which comes mainly from the visual presentation, and they were all practically devoid of moral content

an easy way to see this is through their treatment of characters
the later films just supply characters to add to the bodycount. you get introduced to Bad Ass Assassin #5, get the showdown a scene later, and then onto #6. in the earlier films the characters lived till the end

if you consider the theme: Kill Bill and IB it's 'revenge', Death Proof is about a serial killer - but really they are the same theme, which is 'killing.' the revenge motive was just an excuse to film lots of killing. as was the serial killer idea, obviously. do the protagonists learn anything or change in these films? no, morally they're completely static. only thing that comes close is the french girl feeling sorry for the soldier she shoots, but you saw how that worked out.

Tarantino is not 'making the same film over and over again.' Unfortunately. He is veering off in constant search of new aesthetics and abandoning the type of writing that established him. Yeah, OK, he still puts in the standard 'Tarantino monologue' or 'Tarantino conversation piece' (except for KB vol 1), but nowadays it's a gimmick. Why? cause it's just shoe-horned into totally unrealistic or incongruous situations.

Now, Inglorious Basterds is probably the closest to his previous dialogue-driven efforts, and there probably is some intelligent subtext on film/propoganda and racism, but the overriding aesthetic is so pronounced and abhorrent that I'm not even slightly interested in unpacking it

but how y'all miss the obvious division in his work is beyond me. like, one bunch are basically action films, the other lot are more like stage plays

fair question? i mean, lemme know if you don't wanna play, because the water gets neck-high past a certain point when discussing how these two dudes and their films are viewed, and how one view dictates the other.

"Jack of all trades, master of none, though ofttimes better than master of one"-Anonymous


The sharpest sword is a word spoken in wrath;the deadliest poison is covetousness;the fiercest fire is hatred; the darkest night is ignorance.-The Buddha

Basically what you're saying is that there was a time in Tarantino's career when he wrote good scripts and now there's the period of time when he just makes stupid action film that look pretty with gimmicky dialogue.

"the later films just supply characters to add to the bodycount."

Yeah, that's lame. You don't spend five minutes introducing a character to them kill him in the next scene.

"He is veering off in constant search of new aesthetics and abandoning the type of writing that established him."

New aesthetics? He's paying homage to other filmmakers! To act like he's doing anything new visually is ridiculous. This film wasn't visually much different from Pulp Fiction; it just had a more filmic backdrop in Nazi-Occupied France.

Giving Tarantino a pass for this is like giving Pacino a pass for his film choices. He went for deep, meaningful films in the past and now he's interested in investigating over-the-top pulpy characters who yell a lot.

or at least nowhere near the standards he set himself. perhaps i didn't make that clear in my post

when i said new aesthetics i didn't mean he was necessarily inventing them, just choosing a different one each time. Death Proof had the 70s slasher flick b movie thing, this was 'the fun WW2 movie' (i don't really know or care whether other films like this exist), Kill Bill had all that samurai, kung fu stuff and the asian cinema conventions.

my point was that his action films have really got nothing whatsoever to do with the earlier films. it also amazes me how people don't call out how bad the dialogue is in comparison. it's not that his stuff's old hat, it's that it's greatly declined in quality

I'm with you on the dialogue. Even in the opening scene (which I thought was great), the whole rat discussion was killing me. I was like, "I wouldn't invite a squirrel into my house either." I thought he was going to say that the difference between the two was that the squirrels know their place is outside and don't try to live in the house amongst the humans. Instead it was trying to make an argument that people don't have a good reason for hating rats.

but i'd read the opening scene a couple years ago when the script leaked onto the net, and was impressed ( i didn't read the rest of the film)

but yeah it still wasn't really as good as older films
however, i give him the benefit of the doubt on the rats thing - it's not Tarantino saying it, it's the Nazi saying it. and the Nazis afterall, were highly illogical in all their beliefs. i think the Jew Hunter character was the only somewhat interesting character in the whole film and the motivations for his actions and statements are quite interesting intellectually

>True Romance, Natural Born Killers, Reservoir Dogs, Pulp
>Fiction and Jackie Brown were moralistic films primarily,
>which of course comes from the writing

In what sense are some of these moralistic? Moralism implies that the films teach morals or contain characters with morals. All of these movies have murderers that get away with it, and seeing as how there's very little discussion of morals (Sammy Jack has some religious talk in Pulp Fiction, but his character doesn't really believe in morals as much as divine intervention).

So that's completely the wrong word.


>Tarantino is not 'making the same film over and over again.'
>Unfortunately. He is veering off in constant search of new
>aesthetics and abandoning the type of writing that established
>him. Yeah, OK, he still puts in the standard 'Tarantino
>monologue' or 'Tarantino conversation piece' (except for KB
>vol 1), but nowadays it's a gimmick. Why? cause it's just
>shoe-horned into totally unrealistic or incongruous
>situations.

What?? That's what he's ALWAYS done, lol. Murderers talking about foot massages as they go to kill a guy is realistic and congruous? He's not going for new aesthetics, he's still homaging the directors of his past that he's loved, and clearly the patented "Tarantino dialogue" is exactly the same as it has been in the past-- whether or not it's more or less successful is a matter of opinion, but it clearly is the same.


>Now, Inglorious Basterds is probably the closest to his
>previous dialogue-driven efforts, and there probably is some
>intelligent subtext on film/propoganda and racism, but the
>overriding aesthetic is so pronounced and abhorrent that I'm
>not even slightly interested in unpacking it

No. There's no intelligent subtext. That's giving credit to a director just because you like him when you have literally ZERO basis for this statement.

That anyone who goes to the washroom deserves to die.

>In what sense are some of these moralistic? Moralism implies
>that the films teach morals or contain characters with morals.
>All of these movies have murderers that get away with it, and
>seeing as how there's very little discussion of morals (Sammy
>Jack has some religious talk in Pulp Fiction, but his
>character doesn't really believe in morals as much as divine
>intervention).
>
>So that's completely the wrong word.

In "Dogs," the moralism is between honor among theives (Mr. White) and every man for himself (Blonde, Pink). Orange skirts the lien between both, since he portrays himself as an honorable thief, but is ultimately a mole.

For Pulp, there's moralism in Jules' interactions with his superiors versus Vincent's, and Butch's actions in the pawn shop represent some form of moral authority- he was free and clear from Zed and the Gimp, but chose to go back and help out Marcellus.

the aesthetic work about revenge films

he seems to be working his way through perspectives that haven't been shown

ie everyone gets their revenge

hence i loved death proof
~~~~
When you are born, you cry, and the world rejoices. Live so that when you die, you rejoice, and the world cries.
~~~~
You cannot hate people for their own good.

Waltz carried the film and did a phenomal job,but it felt like Tarantino rushed while shooting the film,which caused a lack of character development in my opinion. the one character who you actually get to see some sort history for character's plotline ends in a way that just got on my nerves a little.
__________________________________________________________
http://moonlightronin.blogspot.com <-----(film reviews of G.I. Joe & District 9)

i would like to know what is this "king kong shit" y'all keep referring to...

fill me in

thanks

d

---
I write like my hair
what grows from
the tip of my pen
is organic
knotty and greasy
at times.

scene where they're playing a drinking game where a guy has a name on his head, which is "king kong", and he can't see it but the others can. and he asks questions to narrow down who it could be. and his questions turn into "was i taken to america against my will? was the experience there unpleasant? did i come in a boat? was i wrapped in chains?...am I the Negro Experience? NO? I must be King Kong then"

---
I write like my hair
what grows from
the tip of my pen
is organic
knotty and greasy
at times.

... which is like what Okayplayer went on about for ages when the remake came out

How many people think of King Kong that way though? King Kong was captured by white people in an exotic land, chained up, kept in captivity and transported to America on a boat, where he was later made a spectacle of, misunderstood, and had his life all fucked up, all because the greedy white guy wanted to make a buck.

Maybe I've been living in a bubble my whole life, but I never thought of King Kong in that context. I mean, now I'm asking legitimately, was King Kong designed as a metaphor for the slave trade?

i had a conversation with one of my professor's and he made it point to break it down. look @ the time frame when the original came out.

Swiped from http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0361748/faq#.2.1.11:

Tarantino commented on "The Late Show" that Inglourious Basterds is the "Tarantino way of spelling it," but he hasn't commented on where the idea for the misspelling arose. Two theories have been offered by viewers. One theory is that "basterds" may be derived from the word "baster," a Dutch word for "bastard" meaning "crossbreed". In the movie, the "basterds" are American/Jewish. The original "Basters" were mainly persons of mixed descent between the Cape Colony Dutch and indigenous African women who at one time would have been absorbed in the white community. In the movie, the Basterds' plan was very similar: to be "civilians absorbed" in France, walking among the Nazis. In the film itself, the words are briefly shown in their misspelled form on Lt Aldo Raine (Brad Pitt)'s rifle. Near the end of the movie, Raine tells Col. Landa (Christoph Waltz) that his family grew up as backwoods bootleggers and moonshiners. Consequently, a second theory is that the misspelling is supposed to connote that Raine has had little in the way of schooling.

according to Peter Travers:

http://www.rollingstone.com/blogs/traverstake/2009/08/at-the-movies-with-peter-trave-27.php

differentiate it from the '78 movie

Fuck all these "theories" and thoughts about the characters and word meanings and shit; the simplest answer is, "because he felt like spelling it that way."
________________________________________________________________________
"I am a rewriter. I rewrite a number of times. Imaginative richness is born in rewriting." - Bernard Malamud

jewish girl makes big speech

black man burns nazis up

jewish soldiers spray trapped nazis with machine guns

everyone smiles

that 'bout right?

fam, i'm ridin with you on this shit... i have no clue why cats are dickriding this below average ass movie.

i was DYING off that King Kong shit

i enjoyed the gun gloves or whatever they were. no only does it punch, but i punches and shoots! and in slow motion! "champagne?" >POW!<

My only question though regarding the King Kong scene, is HOW are y'all niggas gettin mad about "racist shit" in a film about Nazis?

That's like being mad that Krush Groove had rapping in it.

I mean, the guy puts out a film that chastises Nazi Germany...

The guy is then criticized by some black folks for pandering to black sentiment for creating a white character with a black love interest...

But worst of all, said black folks get angry when a Nazi of all people makes a racist joke??? Which btw was not funny, nor was it meant to be.

I have concluded this dude can do nothing right in many peoples eyes.

>I mean, the guy puts out a film that chastises Nazi
>Germany...
>
>The guy is then criticized by some black folks for pandering
>to black sentiment for creating a white character with a black
>love interest...
>
>But worst of all, said black folks get angry when a Nazi of
>all people makes a racist joke??? Which btw was not funny, nor
>was it meant to be.


no, it's all about the context of the joke and how it had absolutely NO relevance to the flow of the story or script. dude actually setup an entire scene just to make that joke. and FOH w/ it wasn't supposed to be funny nigga, THAT SHIT WAS SUPPOSED TO BE FUCKING FUNNY.

QT is a bitch for that shit. if he really wanted to be on some gangster shit, don't write a fucking role for a meaningless black character. make him white. then i woulda had more respect for him at least. dude was covering his tracks with that shit, it glaringly obvious fam.

>no, it's all about the context of the joke and how it had
>absolutely NO relevance to the flow of the story or script.


maybe to you it didn't...but to myself, the chick I was with, and the two other folks we were with it made perfect sense that a Nazi...I repeat, a NAZI...told a racist joke.


>dude actually setup an entire scene just to make that joke.


so the fuck what! You're implying that because a racist joke was the cornerstone of a scene, the entire underlying premise of this scene was to prove how creatively racist Tarantino can be. And then its supposed to be funny to a theater audience, half of which probably consists of liberal hipsters that campaigned and/or voted for Obama and think Kanye West and Bob Marley are geniuses? Really?


>and FOH w/ it wasn't supposed to be funny nigga, THAT SHIT WAS
>SUPPOSED TO BE FUCKING FUNNY.


So why is it that no one laughed? I mean, Tarantino is one of the most creative and nuanced screenwriter's in the last 20 yrs...but he can't get a single laugh off a joke he took a whole scene to set up?


To assume this joke was meant to be funny means:

1. Tarantino is dumb enough to piss off an entire race in his "masterpiece" film

2. He wanted to humanize via humor the deplorable Nazi


>QT is a bitch for that shit. if he really wanted to be on some
>gangster shit, don't write a fucking role for a meaningless
>black character. make him white. then i woulda had more
>respect for him at least.


Stop lying man...you wouldn't respect this dude if he bought you lunch.


dude was covering his tracks with
>that shit, it glaringly obvious fam.


This shit sickens me. I can't wait to folks like you die out...then maybe race relations will get better. I wish you no physical harm tho...your outlook is just fucked up.

Geeks and race obsessed idiots on the other hand don't. Go figure.

And this is only the second Tarantino movie I've ever seen, so yall can miss me with the "fanboy" shit. This was a cool movie.

I enjoy some of his work tho (haven't seen IB yet).

a stupid ass bat-to-the-head and a shootout can make a person like you forget that the story completely fell apart and characters' motivations suddenly started to change.

Put it this way: my alarms wouldn't have sounded so loudly had this been, say, a Brett Ratner film (shit, Brett prolly woulda had a random nigga come through, guns blazing, after the punchline of the joke on some "What you say?" shit)...

But yeah, even though the movie is about Nazis, and we're not supposed to like the character, it's the fact that the line was written by Quentin Tarantino -- whom don't get me wrong, I dig as a filmmaker but is well-known to be a habitual line stepper when it comes to "black shit" -- that annoyed me...

EDIT (ZOMGno): and for better or worse he's so closely tied to his work (as an "Auteur") that everything on the screen is associated with him and his personal thoughts and views on things...
________________________________________________________________________
"I am a rewriter. I rewrite a number of times. Imaginative richness is born in rewriting." - Bernard Malamud

.

"Can I get 1 ticket for Splash 2? Um, do you know if there's going to be any meaning in this film?" (c) Basfaglia at the movies


Crying about other folks enjoying a film that you did not? Fail.

Take a deep breath, watch Transmorphers or Over The Top.

tell'em Tay

Usually I can trust the general consensus of okp, but yall r way off here.

Shit was borderline rubbish imo.

Slow "parts?" lol, aka THE ENTIRE FUCKING MOVIE WAS SLOW. Shit drug to death.

Usually QT's dialogue-filled scenes don't bother me because, well, the dialogue is actually good.

Scenes were filled with corny ass humor and drab conversation. Shit was just uninteresting.

Oh, and I love how he snuck that wack racist joke (king kong) in there. Xept for the fact that the entire purpose of that wack card game was to setup the racist joke..
Oh, but it was justified because the nazi got shot in the nuts and ol frenchie projectionist nigga kissed the white bitch.. (Oh and btw, frenchie nigga was absolutely meaningless to the plot, due to his character completely disappearing after the fire) It's so obvious he was written in purely to balance out the racist ass jokes.

Look, I can deal with racist snark once ("we don't want a negro projectionist" etc) but the king kong shit was overkill. Im honestly seeing what basa and frank r talkin about. Im lookin @ this dude extremely sideways.

Then u have the predictable ass scene where the heroines gets popped. Woooooow didn't see that coming QT..fucking predictable trash.

I aint one to look for symbolism or rhyme or reason to deaths in QT flicks, but this shit was just BAD.

Oh and the hyper-excessive violence?? Yeah, nice "artistic" touch... maybe he thought the emo jews would jerk off to the ending on rainy nights? *shrugs*

Only good thing abt this movie was the jew hunter. His performance was hauntingly good throughout.

I mean, I could go on tearing this shit to shreds but what's the point? And im the biggest QT fan there is but this movie left a sour feeling in my stomach.

I lost a lot of respect for QT tonight.

Let the hate commence...

or to be more specific, the 'joke' was that the Basterd wrote 'king kong' on the card, THAT was the funny bit

it's classic Tarantino -
you start laughing at something you think is OK to laugh about
and then he twists the situation round and confronts you with an uncomfortable truth

you start off giggling at the sillyness of King Kong and this pretentious Nazi having to wear the name on his head

and then it becomes quite chilling as the Nazi not only draws a racist parallel but seems to understand it in quite a insightful, intellectual way (Nazis of course being the pinnacle of racism)

it makes you question the psychology of the non-racist (people who liked King Kong) AND the psychology the racist (the Nazi who in a cool, detached manner delimits an allegory for the African diaspora)

its classic Tarantino alright -

putting in racist sh*t and then hiding behind his "i'm an artist, its the characters saying this, not me" b.s.

the "joke" is that Tarantino has been getting away with it for some time now.

and he is the only one laughing.

if the subject of your film is the Nazis, virtually any deconstruction of them as a distinct political/historical entity will involve their ideas about race (in other words, their racism)

there's basically nowhere else you can go before it becomes about totalitarianism in general and things like that

the opening scene has got a Nazi's discourse on racial characteristics
later you hear see their attitude towards black people

now you might ask, why a black french dude? why not some other persecuted minority? well
a) seems to be the way of most discourses on race in the media (you hear racism, you think Martin Luther King etc, even if your particular country involves different tensions)
b) it's most likely done to garner more antipathy from the audience, not to demean black people

i don't understand why you would just assume Tarantino did it for no reason but for racist kicks, when there is an abundance of context that justifies it

>if the subject of your film is the Nazis, virtually any
>deconstruction of them as a distinct political/historical
>entity will involve their ideas about race (in other words,
>their racism)
>
>there's basically nowhere else you can go before it becomes
>about totalitarianism in general and things like that
>
>the opening scene has got a Nazi's discourse on racial
>characteristics
>later you hear see their attitude towards black people
>

thats all well and good, if this was not a noticeable pattern in all of his movies except for the Kill Bills.

its absurd.

he hides under that bullsh*t to get his rocks off.

its not cute.


>now you might ask, why a black french dude? why not some other
>persecuted minority? well
>a) seems to be the way of most discourses on race in the media
>(you hear racism, you think Martin Luther King etc, even if
>your particular country involves different tensions)
>b) it's most likely done to garner more antipathy from the
>audience, not to demean black people
>

i really didn't care about the black french dude.


>i don't understand why you would just assume Tarantino did it
>for no reason but for racist kicks, when there is an abundance
>of context that justifies it

there is abundence of hisotry in Tarantino's writing that says otherwise.

dude is a racist. not even a racist you can respect because he hides behind his "art".

the irony of Tarantino making a Nazi film is that the Nazi's aint give a f*ck, and you knew were you stood with them, as hateful as they were.

Tarantino hides and tries to be slick with his racist antics.

thanks for breaking it down

Like he snuck Landa's "Jews = rats" in there too?

The characters are Nazi officers...they were racist

you know you're not going to like it.
you went into it looking for ways to hate it.

I'm a huge fan of Pulp Fiction and I think Reservoir Dogs is his best film. I'm also a huge fan of True Romance.

This film was just sloppy. I was hoping that this would be QT's return to form and instead it was a pointless bore. And by pointless, I don't mean it had to have a message, I mean that nothing that happened in one scene ever really affected what happened in another.

I wanted to like this film and the opening scene got me hopes up (I even was willing to overlook that I was annoyed by the rat/squirrel monologue which didn't make sense). But then it went nowhere. And the one storyline that was interesting (Shoshana vs. Landa) disappeared.

I don't think he's as deep and meaningful as some critics give him credit for, but he's entertaining (albeit racist). I love Jackie Brown, and I like Pulp Fiction and large chunks of Reservoir Dogs and the Kill Bills.

*rubs big ass chin & grins*

*laughs @ m. night's career being in dead slumdog storage*

*laughin' @ basaglia wishing i pull the trigger in my avatar*

*peruses through thread, looking for ideas to steal for next script*

*starts to write for the sequel, chapter 6: Basaglia, the return of the big mad face*

*starts to write for the sequel, chapter 6: Basaglia, the return of the big mad face*

You really don't want to get into a discussion about dem numbers between Night and Tarantino. Night's first two major films (Sixth Sense and Unbreakable) made more in the US than every QT film combined.

>*rubs big ass chin & grins*
>
>*laughs @ m. night's career being in dead slumdog storage*
>
>*laughin' @ basaglia wishing i pull the trigger in my avatar*
>
>*peruses through thread, looking for ideas to steal for next
>script*
>
>*starts to write for the sequel, chapter 6: Basaglia, the
>return of the big mad face*

gotdamn.

> dead slumdog storage

The opening scene with Mr. LaPadite and Landa of this movie was Tarantino's best work ever. better than Mr. Orange's fake story to win over the robbers.

that sh*t was stellar. and the music at the very end of that scene kinda reminded me of the Joker's music in Dark Knight, with the irritating alarm sound rising in pitch.

this movie had flaws and a lot of wack parts, but that opening scene was f*cking flawless.

tim roth / amanda plummer diner scene >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that bullshit


that opening scene is overrated as shit. it's a bunch of buildup to nothing. and that squirrel/rat dialogue is some of the worst irrelevant dribble i ever heard.

and it had so much potential, i was eagerly anticipating some intelligent/unexpected shit to unfold...

>tim roth / amanda plummer diner scene
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that bullshit
>
>
>that opening scene is overrated as shit. it's a bunch of
>buildup to nothing. and that squirrel/rat dialogue is some of
>the worst irrelevant dribble i ever heard.
>

the rat/squirrel thing was off, i'll grant you.

but that scene actually had acting in it. it actually conveyed feelings. you had suspsense. those were actual people in those scenes. not that stick-figured caracitures Quentin usually has in his scenes/movies. thats the realist scene Tarantino has made since his Resevoir Dog work.


>and it had so much potential, i was eagerly anticipating some
>intelligent/unexpected shit to unfold...

i was expecting (not really) the same thing in the next 4 chapters.

the next 4 chapters went back to Tarantino bullsh*t. especially Brad Pitt's character. Here you got a serious/acting job done by Landa vs. Pitt's Mad tv/SNL sketch comedy routine. Its hard to take the movie seriously. just didn't work.

yeah, i mean i see what you're saying. it was pretty dramatic when the camera panned to the jews. you could sense the torment in lapadite as landa is talking.

it's a great scene with poor execution imo. cut out the meaningless dialogue and i will agree with you. but the meaningless dialogue is what ruins it for me.

i admit, it's very powerful and dramatic when the nazis shoot up the floor and sholshana runs down the field, that was some heavy shit. but waaay too much nonsensical buildup. it was overkill.

>that opening scene is overrated as shit. it's a bunch of
>buildup to nothing. and that squirrel/rat dialogue is some of
>the worst irrelevant dribble i ever heard.
>
>and it had so much potential, i was eagerly anticipating some
>intelligent/unexpected shit to unfold...

Not only did he break the man down to admit that he was housing jews (without physical force) but the soldiers shot the whole place up. I personally liked the squirrel/rat comparison but to each their own.

what i mean is, the conversation was just misc banter that had no place in the movie. it wasn't funny or quirky (which was clearly the intention). it was just one of those head scratchers that make you go "wtf is he talking about?"

i get tarantino's writing style. i get that he throws in random "everyday" convo into dialogue. however, 50% of the conversation was unnecessary and excessive. get to the fucking point. or at least write dialog that is sensible and witty.

That was no "'everyday' convo," nor was it "just misc banter"

Nor was it meant to be "funny or quirky"

I mean, you can accuse Tarantino of repeating himself in this scene (I mean, this scene's just a longer variation on the opening tension-building scene between Jules and Brett in Pulp Fiction), but it certainly wasn't aimless or boring...
________________________________________________________________________
"I am a rewriter. I rewrite a number of times. Imaginative richness is born in rewriting." - Bernard Malamud

only other movie I have ever fell asleep in was Transformers 2. This movie was GARBAGE.

and they both happen to come out the same summer???

Maybe it's not the films...

but too much unnecassary use of the word nigger. When it makes me feel uncomfortable, it is too much. Same shit with, The Departed. It is cool if it is part of what was going on, but really adding non-sensical dialogue about the Olympics just to say nigger a couple times. Turned me off.


Shit happens

They are worse than Hitler!!!

oh, wait...

they didn't come up though. crazy, huh.

And Nantucket.

negro = neger in German. Neger is not a slur, but it sounds exactly like neger. Neger has nothing to do with describing black people in German. Germans would have said schwarz, which means black man or woman.

So that is why I felt I would have given him an A-, but he just had to nigger/neger in there some how some way.

They said negro like four or five times, but never once the "real" n word.

they said neger. Negro = Neger in german. The words made you think negro, but neger is what they said. In above response neger is not the word Germans use to describe black people, the word is schwarz. So Tarantino got to use nigger , trying to push the edge unnecassarily, Tarantino being a jackass.

i don't remember the word being said at all.

>i don't remember the word being said at all.

That's because it wasn't. Not once.

if he'd meant to say "negro", you'd have heard "schwarz" or "schwarzen"...but, you fucking DIDN'T, DID YOU?

Honest question: Do you carry this same attitude with you in real life? Like do you just walk around all day kicking stuff over and muttering "fuckin cracker" under your breath?

And does all this angst and anger have any effect on your health? I would think that it wouldn't be healthy.

I see a dude with his eyeballs nearly popping out of his sockets and his teeth grit so tight he can't close his mouth...

Kinda Harvey Pekarish...

scary

"yes, brother....burn them nazis!"

"best movie ever! he hit him with a bat!"

Looks like somebody is a widdle cranky!

Can some somebody do PTP a favor, and warm up some formula for Inglourious Basaglea? He's a widdle hungy.

Watched it this weekend. Loved it. It's the same ol' Tarantino that toys with his audience.If you like a good script ( Check), you like violence ( Check), You like his lil geeky references to obscure cinema ( Check)... Chances are this movie will not dissapoint your expectations...Unless you expected to watch Citizen Kane. Whether it's not one of his best work is a question of taste. What I came out with, is that visually , it looks better than anything he's directed before. It was a lot funnier than I thought I was going to be. And yeah it has it's problems but considering the garbage that been in theatre this whole summer, this was the best summer hit movie this year.

Christophe Waltz should get some love coming award season.He's one of those bad guys that you end up loving.Brad Pitt trying to be Italian was hillarious. I wish we had more of Eli Roth's character and I also liked Stiglitz who died too early. He could have done more with that character. The Brit part of the movie looked out of place to me. I agree with the comments that some wrote about Col Landa's end. It seemed unpolished. But at the end of the movie folks where on their feet clapping.

And I was happy about the movie as a whole. I 'll get the BluRay when it comes out and cherrish it with the rest of the QT flicks I own.

Anybody else heard about a sequel that will talk about the Buffalo Soldiers. I read something like that in Empire magazine a while back?

i made sure to not read this post or any other reviews, actually i still haven't, because i just wanted to enjoy the movie. saw it this afternoon and loved it. only part that dragged a little was when the movie shifted to focus on the nazi film. i was surprised that being subtitled didn't distract me from the dialogue at all and thought that the conversations still flowed well.

Those who didn't like the film, don't say you weren't warned if it happens...

latimes.com:

>Pssst! Here's 'Inglourious Basterds'' secret Oscar campaign strategy

Surely, the question has occurred to you: Why isn't Oscar-mad Harvey Weinstein releasing "Inglourious Basterds" in Oscar-friendly November or December? Doesn't he have faith that "Inglourious Basterds" can run the derby? Hey, Quentin Tarantino proved himself in 1994 when "Pulp Fiction" was nominated for best picture and Tarantino won best screenplay.

Last year, Harvey held back "The Reader" to the last possible stretch, giving it a limited opening in Los Angeles and New York in December, then wide release in January. The strategy paid off with five Academy Award nominations -- including a surprise bid (to some, not us) for best picture -- resulting in the Big Win at Long Last for Kate Winslet as best actress.

Answer: Harvey plans to reserve that last-minute, ambush strategy he employed for "The Reader" for his other major Oscar pony, "Nine," Rob Marshall's adaptation of the Tony-winning musical starring Penelope Cruz, Daniel Day-Lewis and Marion Cotillard. For "Inglourious Basterds," he plans to use the "Crash" campaign model.

By releasing "Inglourious Basterds" in theaters now, Harvey can give the flick a second wave of ballyhoo when the DVD comes out late this year. Because the DVD will be a mass release, it won't need to be watermarked with numerals identifying each disc with the name of an academy member or other award voter. That's one of the sneaky ways "Crash" beat front-runner "Brokeback Mountain" for best picture of 2005 -- Lionsgate blitzed Hollywood with more than 120,000 cheap DVDs.

To manufacture and ship a watermarked DVD costs about $20. The cost for a non-watermarked equivalent: $5.

Beware, Hollywood. Given how red rivers flow in Tarantino pix, the town will be engulfed in a blood tide this December when Harvey unleashes his "Inglourious Basterds" DVD campaign. It will probably pay off with two Academy Award nominations: best screenplay (Tarantino) and supporting actor (Christoph Waltz). Maybe more. "Pulp Fiction" got nommed for best picture when there were only five slots; this year there will be twice as many.
________________________________________________________________________
"I am a rewriter. I rewrite a number of times. Imaginative richness is born in rewriting." - Bernard Malamud

This must have been Tarantino's reason for writing the movie in the first place; man he is evil!
Oh and this shit racist

>This must have been Tarantino's reason for writing the movie
>in the first place; man he is evil!

People don't write movies with the hopes on winning awards?

Even though I think the script sucked. I'm really not sure what else is out there in terms of strong scripts.

And with 10 Best Picture nominees out there, it's more about who won't get one.

made you shake your head of course.

The obsession with blacks.
The grotesque violent scenes.
The detached story telling of course (not really detracting, just his style I suppose).

The only instances and things that took away from the fun of Nazi killing were..

(if you were looking FOR ANYTHING ELSE other than fun Nazi killing Tarantino style movie watching, you're a fucking annoying shitbag moron who talks too much and deserves to be flame farted on for being a big bitchass buzzkill faggot who screams intellectual things during orgasms from jerking off with Crisco. Shut your fucking cry baby mouth about EVERYTHING GOTFUCKINGDAMMIT, every movie isn't some shining brilliant piece of cinema, and every romp in the theater isn't something that has to be perfection, let SOME movies be just dumb fun for crying out fucking loud, you fucking cunts. Go read a fucking textbook or something. Christ.)

...

Oh. Where was I?

Oh yes! The things that took away were...

-The historical ending change and the whole 90's era action movie cinema scene. Not very Tarantino imo.

-The underdeveloping of the Basterds. Besides Brad Pitt's slackjawed American soldier boy, and Hugo Siglitz, the homicidal madman (a crowd favorite by far), none of them were worth remembering. Even the Bear Jew was just kind of annoying. Shoshanna was a little devoid of character too. Not enough CHARACTER like Kill Bill and Pulp Fiction. But alas, I'm comparing now, which isn't really cool.

-The must have, inclusion of nigger jokes, I'm guessing we can just chalk this up to being another Tarantino-ism at this point in the game.


Hell, it was such a good Nazi killing time that I didn't even pull my "watch check" till 2 hours in. I find that a bit impressive that a Tarantino movie held my attention for that long. Usually I get bored with his shitstorm of conversation story lines.

I put Inglorious Basterds in MY Top 3 Tarantino films. Fuck everyone else.

He has only missed on one film for my money (From Dusk til Dawn).

Again the dialog is what I always crave and he delivers the majority of the time. He stayed true and it payed off for those that appreciate his style. I couldnt find one person who would also like this film so I understand the hate he receives and those that prefer a different style. But I'm the type who would rather watch two people in a room having an interesting (real life) convo than explosions every 10 min.

and will see it again this weekend

I laughed my ass off when the 3 "Italian Basterds" tried speaking the language. Damn that was a great scene.

I tried remembering the name but for the life of me can't recall it.

head of the airforce and Hitler's secretary/deputy

He held it down for a person that the audience needs to hate. I say he was the go to guy that got my attention when he was on the screen.
__________________________________________

artisticalliance.org
podcast: Freakin Awesome Podcast on iTunes.

Turns out this obscure Korean director made it and he and QT decided to put QT's name on it to get more buzz. Is it okay to like the movie now?

**********
"Play Your Game" (c) Stan Van Gundy

Pitt was great and hilarious, but Christoph Waltz stole the show. That dude killed it every scene.

I felt it got a little retarded when Landa suddenly switched sides at the end though.

>Pitt was great and hilarious, but Christoph Waltz stole the
>show. That dude killed it every scene.

When he whipped out the Itlaian on the EYEtalians and their hand-gestures, I was too through. Landa was thorough!

>I felt it got a little retarded when Landa suddenly switched
>sides at the end though.

"Isn't it a shame to know that someone who can't get pussy for YEARS still quits you after just a couple of months because NO pussy is so much better than YOUR pussy?" - j@ney

>>Pitt was great and hilarious, but Christoph Waltz stole the
>>show. That dude killed it every scene.
>
>When he whipped out the Itlaian on the EYEtalians and their
>hand-gestures, I was too through. Landa was thorough!
>
LMAO

Basa flop-o-meter: fail

Quite surprised. The Weinsteins' TV campaign worked wonders, not to mention the lack of other "action" movies out right now. I heard people saying they wanted to see it this weekend... that's legs.

.

any other film does 'bers, it's the film itself. Interesting.

They didn't advertise the flick as a 2.5 hour talkfest for a REASON. They advertised it as a movie where Nazis get smashed and shit gets blown up real good for a REASON.

Goddamn, I gave the motherfucker 3 out of 4 stars on this one, and folks still think I'm reaching to hate. Did I need to give it 4, despite the fact I didn't feel that it was perfect at all, in order to criticize Tarantino again? lol

that's fine that you have some criticisms of it while liking the film as a whole. But the viruclence of your criticisms make it look like you didn't want to like the movie when it came out, and are thus straining to like the film in spite of itself.

And I know from reading your stuff that you do tend to take the Ebert position of expecting to like a movie no matter what, which is why the way you're voicing your criticisms of Basterds comes off inconsistent. It seems here like you're trying to appeal to both the QT haters and the QT apologists with this.

As a series of set pieces, it worked really well. Performances were good to great on all fronts. And I found the story intriguing.

The only thing missing is that I wanted to see more of the Basterds in action. Not just the aftermath.

Shoot, I'd be happy to go and see it again.

hell the fuck yes i was
*grins from ear to ear*


bear jew
jew bear
ommfg

pitt! pitt! pitt! pitt!


waltz did his job
i hated he verily



and QT?
"This just might be my masterpiece".
hrrm mebbe
~~~~
When you are born, you cry, and the world rejoices. Live so that when you die, you rejoice, and the world cries.
~~~~
You cannot hate people for their own good.

but....I dug this. He really nailed it. Not too over-the-top. Character acting was on point and dialogue was great, as usual. A visually stunning, deftly directed film. Q delivered.

Personally, this is my new favorite of all his films, and there's only a few I really liked.

i mean, damn does he want black people to like him, but other than that it was entertaining. the dialogue goes on forever, and a lot of it could have been cut, but i was never uninterested in it to be honest. and i was dreading the running time going in.

second movie he's done it in, which is kindof an odd thing to do in multiple movies.

movie itself was pretty preposterous plot-wise but entertaining nonetheless.

and Michael Fassbender is that dude. hope he gets some bigger Hollywood roles soon.

i will concede Ls on box office. but, i'll get that back with avatar and prolly before that with that hughes brother shit. i am scared as fuck that jewish sentiment is gonna give that big chin clown a whole assload of oscars. it scares the fuck outta me, quite frankly. i'll have to re-structure my whole PTP gameplan. and i don't feel like it. i enjoy making tarantanko fans mad.

oh, just a bit of trivia: paul thomas anderson was my first choice to pit against tarantanko, but i figured the hipsters liked him a lil too much to make that the kinda clusterfuck i will really looking for, so i had to pinpoint juuuuuuust the right guy. who better than m. night? he's good, he just corny enough to make people REALLY hate him, he's just cool enough to have people REALLY like him and, as always, my saving grace...he gives me that non-white racial factor that i desperately need to push the buttons of white dudes here. he indian (a dark one, too) and i love it.

didn't see grindhouse or bastards.

didn't see any nightdawg movie since the sixth sense, i don't think.

i don't really fuck with movies, truth be told.

but i like yelling.

and i do think you're completely, truly fucked on the oscar thing. pitt's going to get an actor nomination, tarantino will get a director, it will get picture. it won't win any of them, though.

possibly director, but i doubt it.

that was pretty good.
Avatar looks like some cornball shit but I'm sure it'll get those 8-13 year old boys mothers money.
Basterds will definitely get an Oscar nod for Waltz & it's immensely possible it will get multiple noms for Tarantino. It's a great flick, try watching it without thinking about resting your nutsack on the guys chin.

GOOD!

lol.
holy shit.

V.

No depth, empty dialogue, and didn't care much about the characters.

Excellent performances, some excellent scenes(the opener, the buildup of the scene in the bar, and the final scene in the theater...how cryptic was that?), great sets....but in the end, I just wasn't engaged at all.

The editing(or lack thereof) just didn't make sense....trying to include way too many things, some scenes that were stretched out far too long, and then one very important history altering moment just kinda glossed over(you guys know what I'm talking about).

A story with depth and dynamic characters are what engage me.....just being a revenge fantasy with some 'cool' or funny things thrown in doesn't make a quality movie.

basa, you're not the only one who sees the comparison:

http://www.cinephilemagazine.com/2009/08/27/review-inglourious-basterds-2009-2/

Tarantino, it seems, is turning into M. Night Shyamalan. They are both talented, visionary filmmakers who are mired in their own self-aggrandizement. Not since Jackie Brown has Tarantino been able to combine his penchant for film thievery and rich dialogue into a film that is as satisfying in story, character, and yes, even action. Take for example a scene that appears in the middle of Basterds. It takes place inside a tavern occupied by a bunch of drunken German soldiers playing cards. The scene starts out quietly, as expected, and builds by adding a never-ending assortment of extraneous jokes, characters, flashbacks, and monologues. This finally culminates, predictably, in yet another Mexican standoff – something Tarantino’s been doing since Reservoir Dogs, except this time the guns are aimed at crotches, not faces. The scene ends in a violent shootout that by that point is a welcome respite from the long, ponderous dialogue that preceded it. Except, wait, the scene isn’t over. In nothing more than pure indulgence on his part, Tarantino adds another Mexican standoff! This time with characters we barely know. This is the same shit Shyamalan has been pulling since the disastrous Lady in the Water. In that film, if you recall, Shyamalan showed his complete distaste for his audience by spoon-feeding them with all the subtlety of an amateur. With Basterds, Tarantino does Shyamalan one better by eschewing cinematic storytelling for a pastiche that is lifeless, vacuous, and ultimately pointless.


Manoj is the official template for self-absorbed egomaniac once-promising directors turned into hacks. GOOD!

Christoph Waltz! the only reason that keeps you watching this film. the Basterds weren't that interesting and Shosanna's revenge theme was only OK (although Melanie Laurent played it well). and I agree -- the interracial relationship was pandering*.

flawed writing, a good degree of sadism, maybe a few scenes too long (although I had no problems with the pacing) but enjoyable. I think the use of so much French and German helped this one; if the entire movie was English I might have been less enthused.

* white people in this thread: the pretentious dismissal of racism is a bad look. objections are fine, but modern bigotry comes in subtle layers -- to sarcastically mock the accusations is annoying, especially from the governing race. some of you couldn't see racism unless QT put a pillowcase over his head (and I'm sure a minority would defend that as satirical).